Dialogue with a young theist (longer version)
A philosophy professor challenged his students
with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did 'God'
create everything that exists?" A student replied,
"Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed: civil
disagreement is the very point of philosophy
courses, no bravery is required for dissent! Civil
dissent is rewarded! Agreement is the death of
philosophy, disagreement is its life's blood.)
"God created everything?" the professor asked.
"Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is
removed: no college student in the 21st century
addresses a college professor as 'sir' - which
demonstrates that whoever it was that made up the
original story never went to college. In addition,
the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' - it
comes off as passive aggressive anger more than
anything else.)
The professor answered, "Well then, here's a
logical puzzle for you: If God created everything,
then God created evil; Therefore, according to the
principal that 'our works define who we are', 'God'
is evil."
The student became silently enraged over his
worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project
out his feelings of inadequecy as smugness coming
from the professor.
The student then said: "Can I ask you a question
professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor. That's the
point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the
original story clearly has little experience with a
real college classroom. The whole point of a
philosophy or theology course is to foster
discussion.)
Student: Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."
Student: "No, there isn't"
The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with
any emotion other than curiosity. After all, he's
heard bad arguments like this for more years than
the student has been alive. (The desire to see the
professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just
another projection of the feelings of inadequecy
found in theists who aren't able to argue their own
points well...)
The student continues. You can have lots of heat,
even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat,
a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything
called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero,
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after
that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we
would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir,
cold is only a word we use to describe the absence
of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can
measure in thermal units because heat is energy.
Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence
of it"
Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and
working out how many times he's heard this bad
logic by now. 100 times?). Do you remember the
section in your workbook on semantic fallacies?
Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)
Professor: Let me give you a quick review. Both
'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... They are
what the philosopher John Locke properly called
"secondary qualities". The secondary qualities
refer to how we humans experience a very real
phenomena: the movement of atomic particles. The
terms 'heat' and 'cold' refer to an interaction
between human nervous systems and various speeds
of atomic particles in their environment. So what
we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat'
and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to
denote our relative experience of temperature.
So your entire argument is specious. You have not
'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, or that 'cold'
somehow exists without any ontological status,
what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a
subjective term. Take away the subjective concept,
and the 'thing in itself', the temperature we are
denoting as 'cold', still exists. Removing the term
we use to reference the phenomena does not
eradicate the phenomena.
Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there
such a thing as darkness, professor?"
Professor: You are still employing the same logical
fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary
qualities.
Student: "So you say there is such a thing as
darkness?"
Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are
repeating the very same error. "Darkness" exists as
a secondary quality.
Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not
something, it is the absence of something. You can
have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light but if you have no light constantly you have
nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's
the meaning we use to define the word. In reality,
Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to
make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can
you give me a jar of darkness, professor?
Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of
light. Seriously, "light and dark' are subjective
terms we use to describe how we humans measure
measure photons visually. The photons actually
exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just
subjective evaluations, relative terms... having to
do, again, with an interaction between our nervous
systems and another phenomenon of nature - this
time, photons. So again, doing away with a
subjective term does not eradicate the actual
phenomena itself - the photons. Nothing actually
changes. If we humans tend to call 'x number of
photons' 'dark' (while cats refer to it as 'bright
enough for me&quot those number of photons we
denote as 'dark' exist, and they continue to exist
even if we do away with the term 'dark.'
Do you get it now?
Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying
to work out quantum physics)
Professor: I see your still struggling with the
fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue,
perhaps you'll see it.
Student: Well, you are working on the premise of
duality, the christian explains.
Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two
times now. But carry on.
Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that
there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing
the concept of God as something finite, something
we can measure.
Professor: Be careful. If you want to place your
god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science
and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left
with nothing but a mystery of your own devising. So
if you use this special plead your god beyond
reason to solve the problem, you can't call your god
moral either. You can't call 'him' anything. You
can't say anything else about something that you
yourself have defined as beyond reason other than
that the term you've created is incoherent. So your
solution is akin to treating dandruf by
decapitation.
Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was
just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a
thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has
never seen, much less fully understood them.
Professor: You just said that science cannot
explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean
by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there
remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you
agree?
Student: Yes.
Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we
accept that there are things like thoughts, or
electricity or magnetism even though we have never
seen them?
Student: Yes!
Professor: Recall the section in your textbook
concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to
the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a
category error occurs when an inappropriate
measure is used in regards to an entity, such as
asking someone what the color of a sound is...
Asking someone to 'see' magnetism directly (and
not just its effects) commits such an error.
However, there is yet another error in your
argument: your assumption that empircism or even
science is based on 'real time observation' alone.
This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing
the world, nor is science merely the study of
whatever we are currently looking at. We can use
other senses to detect phenomena. And we can also
examine their effects upon the world.
Furthermore, you are importing yet another
erroneous presumption into the discussion: you are
conflating the fact that science is incomplete with
the implication that a lack of an answer from
naturalism automatically means that your theistic
assertion is correct. So you'll also want to review
the section on 'arguing form ignorance.'
Do you have more to say?
Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed,
due to the protection his shield of ignorance
affords him.) .... Um....... to view death as the
opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that
death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is
not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it"
Professor: You are really in love with this
secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are
again confusing a secondary quality with the
phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are
subjective terms we use to describe a more
fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in
question, however, does exist. Biological forms in
various states exist. Doing away with the
subjective term does not eradicate the existence
of death.
Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there
such a thing as immorality?"
Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk)
You're not going to again confuse a secondary
quality for an atttribute, are you? Please... what
can I do to help you see this problem?
Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and
oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely
the absence of morality. Is there such thing as
injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice.
Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses.
"Isn't evil the absence of good?"
Professor: So, if someone murders your mother
tonight, nothing happened? There was just an
absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot...
she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence
of life, right?
Student: Uh.....
Professor: You're beginning to see that something
is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's
what you're missing. You are confusing a secondary
quality... a subjective term that we can use to
describe a phenomena, for the phenomena itself.
Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The
class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for
them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descrptive
term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but
the behaviors exist. So if you remove the
secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate
the real behavior that the terms only exist to
describe in the first place. So by saying that
'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not
removing immoral intentions and behaviors, or the
problem of immoral intentions and behaviors from
existence, you are just removing the secondary
attribute, the subjective term.
And notice how dishonest your argument is on yet
another level... in that it speaks of morality and
immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a
behavior, evil is an intent to do harm and an act
commited with such an intent.
By the way, are you really trying to imply that
immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?
Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological
blows to his corrupt worldview....) Have you ever
observed evolution with your own eyes, professor?"
The professor soothes his aching forehead, and
prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be
subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.
Professor: What an interesting turn this
conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read
Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over
subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in
your textbook. Page 1.
Student: "Professor, since no one has ever
observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?
Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?
Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the
priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do
observe the process of evolution at work, for the
process works at this very moment. As for the
implication in your argument that one must 'be
there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you
realize that we can infer the process through
examining the evidence that these processes leave
behind? In a sense, we are there when we observe
artifacts.
Consider for example the science of astronomy.
How do we know about super novas? Because we can
observe diferrent supernovas in different stages
of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the
night sky. The same stands for any historical
science. Your mistake here is that you think science
is merely 'real-time-observation'. This is a
strawman of science. By your logic trees can't grow
- after all, who's actually witnessed a tree
growing?
Science is both direct and indirect observation... it
also allows for inference. If, for the sake of
consistency you were asked to follow your own rule,
you'd have to concede that we have no evidence
tree growth, or mountain formation - after all, I've
never actually seen a seed grow into a tree, I've
only seen it in stages.
Student: "But professor! You stated that science
is the study of observed phenomena.
Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science
is... Science is more than just real time observation,
we also observe artifacts and make inferences. But
continue....
Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond
to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of
what I mean?"
Professor: Certainly.
Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever
seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's
brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The christian
points towards professor, "Is there anyone here
who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelt the
professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done
so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It
appears no one here has had any sensory perception
of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well,
according to the rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the
professor has no brain!"
(So much for the student's pretense of respect,
clearly his goal is to ridicule).
Professor: You mean, according to your strawman
view of science. I am glad that you are here in my
class so that I can help you better understand
what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking'
at things. Science is empirical, but also rational.
We can make inferences from evidence of things
that we do see, back to phenonema that we might
not be able to directly see. Such as a functioning
brain.
And one inference I can make from observing your
behaviors here today is that you've wasted the
money you've spent on your logic textbook so far
this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that
you crack open that book today, and start reading.
From page 1.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Source: www.rationalresponders.com/debunking_an_urban_legend_evil_is_a_lack_of_something

Beautiful post

You see my dear brother,both arguements are very true but it depends on the ability to manipulate things.You have only tried to tell me a second logical view exist but the fact is you can in no way disprove the existence of God.
God himself said he created evil but frowns at it and its very valid fact that what you sow you reap,if you sow good,you get good and if you sow evil you get evil.You have to agree with me God could not have created us with evil agenda but made us choose between both with a clear warning,showing us what he is inclined to.We chose evil because not only our disobedience but also our curiosity made us attempt to eat the fruit.Just as this man who has never seen God has curiously defined him as measurable.
He said we can only tell of which is not measurable in wonder land,rejecting the fact the Bible tells us this fact in an absolutely unbelievable way but yet has meaning in a way we just can't really disprove it as you can see in the link of former atheist I gave you.
In order to prove to you that Emmalot121's posts are valid,tell me what happens when you have no iota of happiness left in you or what happens when you have no iota of morality left in you.With this I prove to you again that it is a fallacy and generally impossible for God to make good without evil.
Man cannot define mystery neither can he define infinity,therefore God has given us the power to guess accurately but not convincingly what can take us to heaven.Even as Bible told us no one gets to father except through son,it still tells us not to judge anyone on who is going to hell,even with our heart convincing us.
You write of God because you seek of God.For big bang is an absolute fallacy,so is evolution,for no man can accurately tell you how it began unless he existed before existence itself,no man can put conscience in you unless he has conscience and therefore no process can bring energy,life,intelligence and even complexity and mystery except he has it all.
No one can put a conscience that tends towards good and no evil without being against evil.So no man can punish good if it is his second function as it is very untrue that ceteris paribos you will punish the other side of you when you know you are both which signifies that you are punishing yourself.
AS GOD HIMSELF SAID BE HOLY;FOR I AM HOLY.You have no point in trying to tell the perfect being who sent his son just to preach the attributes of Holiness as being unholy. Once again read the atheist link as it will help in nurturing your perishing soul.

Misogynist2014: You see my dear brother,both arguements are very true but it depends on the ability to manipulate things.You have only tried to tell me a second logical view exist but the fact is you can in no way disprove the existence of God.
God himself said he created evil but frowns at it and its very valid fact that what you sow you reap,if you sow good,you get good and if you sow evil you get evil.You have to agree with me God could not have created us with evil agenda but made us choose between both with a clear warning,showing us what he is inclined to.We chose evil because not only our disobedience but also our curiosity made us attempt to eat the fruit.Just as this man who has never seen God has curiously defined him as measurable.
He said we can only tell of which is not measurable in wonder land,rejecting the fact the Bible tells us this fact in an absolutely unbelievable way but yet has meaning in a way we just can't really disprove it as you can see in the link of former atheist I gave you.
In order to prove to you that Emmalot121's posts are valid,tell me what happens when you have no iota of happiness left in you or what happens when you have no iota of morality left in you.With this I prove to you again that it is a fallacy and generally impossible for God to make good without evil.
Man cannot define mystery neither can he define infinity,therefore God has given us the power to guess accurately but not convincingly what can take us to heaven.Even as Bible told us no one gets to father except through son,it still tells us not to judge anyone on who is going to hell,even with our heart convincing us.
You write of God because you seek of God.For big bang is an absolute fallacy,so is evolution,for no man can accurately tell you how it began unless he existed before existence itself,no man can put conscience in you unless he has conscience and therefore no process can bring energy,life,intelligence and even complexity and mystery except he has it all.
No one can put a conscience that tends towards good and no evil without being against evil.So no man can punish good if it is his second function as it is very untrue that ceteris paribos you will punish the other side of you when you know you are both which signifies that you are punishing yourself.
AS GOD HIMSELF SAID BE HOLY;FOR I AM HOLY.You have no point in trying to tell the perfect being who sent his son just to preach the attributes of Holiness as being unholy. Once again read the atheist link as it will help in nurturing your perishing soul.

thank God you said it depends on you ability to manipulate thing( as your christian student did in the first place and you kept silent) ... Also there is no way you can prove God exists same as there is no way u can disprove it.... The people who wrote your bible didn't exist before the earth was created.... Your god said he is holy but he still went ahead and created evil(e.g flood). And now he is claiming holy, your God possesses the attributes of a man or man possesses his attribute(e.g hotheadedness)