Why are you an atheist?

[HughMungus]

Finally something to work with.

OK, why even posit that God exists in the first place?

I think we can both agree that if we make up something out of thin air, it is pointless trying to prove it exists simply because I made it up- right? I suddenly say that there are green Twinkies waiting to kill me behind the closed door in front of us, you would look at me funny. You would then ask what makes me think there are green Twinkies behind the door.

This is the starting point in the debate for God in my eyes.

The green Twinkies should be consideded not exist because there is no reason to posit their existance. It was created, not to explain a phenomena, but simply for shits and grins.

God was created initially to explain things we didn't understand. Over the years, we have discovered that most of those things attributed to God were actually explainable via scintific means (thunder, the sun, volcanos, etc.). While there are still things out there that haven't been explained fully, we have been wrong so many times with the 'God explaination' that it makes me wonder why people still try to use it.

So the question is- what question is God specifically addressing at this point?

Like the green Twinkies the concept of God shouldn't be considered unless it addresses a specific question. "To explain everything we don't know" isn't good enough for me. Occam's Razor is the simplest way I could use to define this. We don't need to create beings to define things we don't know, since we then have the impossible task of trying to define how God does these things. And God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic when something we attribute to him is proven to be caused by something else. There is always someone there to say, "OK- we were wrong on that point. What about everything else?"

The concept of God is only useful to answer a question. The answer of God is a very very vague and useless answer to ANY question. As such, it should not be considered- other more scientific explainations (which we can attempt to prove) should be used instead.

All this has been stated earlier. Does this rewording make it easier?

It's as clear as it's always been. You have chosen to use a very narrow definition of the nature of god (in this case, god OR science, god OR nature) and used it to prove to yourself that there is no god. For someone who accuses someone else of being stupid and childish, it's a strangely closed-minded thought process. But I've already talked about god and science/nature not being mutually exclusive and it was ignored so nevermind.

Speaking of Ocham's Razor, what is the more simple explanation for something existing, that it was created or that it was not created and (somehow) has always existed?

[HughMungus]

Just as there is evidence that a creator could exist, right?

No.
Aliens are presumably made out of flesh.
We have seen evidence of flesh.
We know its possible.

But you can't disprove his existence, either. So if you can neither prove not disprove it, they are equally valid theories, aren't they?

Again, it is not my place to disprove his existence.
You say he exists. Show me.
Besides, I said there is no way to test his existence.
I didn't mention proof. You are still confusing evidence with proof.

That was my point -- that you can't use one narrow belief in what god's nature is to prove that there is no god at all for everyone no matter what they believe.

So your point is that by renaming anything as "god" makes god exist?
Really?

You're not even addressing the original questions anymore. Have fun playing with yourself.

[Rob the Wop]

It's as clear as it's always been. You have chosen to use a very narrow definition of the nature of god (in this case, god OR science, god OR nature) and used it to prove to yourself that there is no god. For someone who accuses someone else of being stupid and childish, it's a strangely closed-minded thought process. But I've already talked about god and science/nature not being mutually exclusive and it was ignored so nevermind.

Speaking of Ocham's Razor, what is the more simple explanation for something existing, that it was created or that it was not created and (somehow) has always existed?

OK then. What the fuck is the definition of God beyond an omnipotent being that created everything? How could I possibley be narrow minded if I say that this is THE definition? An all encompassing God?

Did you at least READ the definition that was Occam's Razor? Don't you see the aliens as analogous to God creating everything? How can you possibley miss the fact that attributing a God to ANYTHING means you then have a million more questions that cannot be answered. You would have to define the being that is God to explain his existance. And define how he created everything. Did you at least understand the bold characters (I did this for you, since I knew you would miss the point).

Science has long ago tossed the notion of saying "because God did it and you can't question God" as foolish. You want to go back to the Stone Age.

Fine. You want to give me the definition of God, then I will refute it on your terms. If you want me to refute the logic of God's existance, give me what the fuck you think that logical argument IS.

Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, how the fuck do you want me to phrase the argument?

God. As. A. Premise. Is. Unnecessary. Therefore. Should. Not. Be. Considered.

Your homework for tonight is to read up on what a premise and conclusion is. Then read up on what the scientific method is and finish with writing Occam's Razor on the board 100 times.

One last thing.

I. Did. Not. Prove. Anything.
I. Never. Did.
I. Do. Not. Need. To.
A. Belief. Requires. No. Proof.
You. Cannot. Prove. God. Anyway.
I. Believe. That. God. Does. Not. Exist. Because. The. Concept. Of. God. Is. Unnecessary.

[HughMungus]

It's as clear as it's always been. You have chosen to use a very narrow definition of the nature of god (in this case, god OR science, god OR nature) and used it to prove to yourself that there is no god. For someone who accuses someone else of being stupid and childish, it's a strangely closed-minded thought process. But I've already talked about god and science/nature not being mutually exclusive and it was ignored so nevermind.

Speaking of Ocham's Razor, what is the more simple explanation for something existing, that it was created or that it was not created and (somehow) has always existed?

OK then. What the fuck is the definition of God beyond an omnipotent being that created everything? How could I possibley be narrow minded if I say that this is THE definition? An all encompassing God?

Did you at least READ the definition that was Occam's Razor? Don't you see the aliens as analogous to God creating everything? How can you possibley miss the fact that attributing a God to ANYTHING means you then have a million more questions that cannot be answered. You would have to define the being that is God to explain his existance. And define how he created everything. Did you at least understand the bold characters (I did this for you, since I knew you would miss the point).

Science has long ago tossed the notion of saying "because God did it and you can't question God" as foolish. You want to go back to the Stone Age.

Fine. You want to give me the definition of God, then I will refute it on your terms. If you want me to refute the logic of God's existance, give me what the fuck you think that logical argument IS.

Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, how the fuck do you want me to phrase the argument?

God. As. A. Premise. Is. Unnecessary. Therefore. Should. Not. Be. Considered.

Your homework for tonight is to read up on what a premise and conclusion is. Then read up on what the scientific method is and finish with writing Occam's Razor on the board 100 times.

One last thing.

I. Did. Not. Prove. Anything.
I. Never. Did.
I. Do. Not. Need. To.
A. Belief. Requires. No. Proof.
You. Cannot. Prove. God. Anyway.
I. Believe. That. God. Does. Not. Exist. Because. The. Concept. Of. God. Is. Unnecessary.

I give up. You won't answer some very simple questions and you don't understand some of the things I'm saying (e.g., the Ocham's Razor comment that you didn't get). Too bad. You might have learned something. I might have, too.

[Ranger Genius]

Okay, hugh, tell me why you believe there is no easter bunny. there's no proof he doesn't exist, so how can you possibly make a decision either way.

And if you come up with a decent response, I'm just going to redefine the easter bunny as "my parents."

Now, let's go over this one more time, and I'll try to keep things monosyllabic, so you can follow:

If there IS NO evidence of something's existence, it does not exist. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO NOT EXIST. This is not the same thing as saying that if we haven't yet found evidence of something, it doesn't exist. Do you understand? There's a difference between unproven and unproveable. God CANNOT be proven. The suggestion of his existence is unfalsifiable. Aliens, we can check for, eventually. God, we can't.

But to reiterate, and hopefully to help drive this all home later:

Hugh, tell me why you believe there is no easter bunny.

[bringer]

Or, hugh, if you would prefer, you may simply place your fingers in you ears and go "LALALALA, you'renotansweringmyquestion, LALALALA!!"

[bringer]

Why does this argument remind me so much of the Intelligent Design arguments I've had?

[bringer]

Oh yeah.
Now I know why its like the ID debates!

One guy is all like: Prove that god didn't do it just like the bible said!
And I'd be all like: I don't have proof, but heres a pile of evidence for evolution *pointing*
Then the guy is all like: Yeah but thats not PROOF!
And I'd say: I never said it was.
Then I'd be all like: So where your evidence for ID?
And he'd be all like: Right here! *holding the bible*
And I'd be all like: Oh.
And he'd be all like: Damn strait!

[d6]

I in fact, do believe that ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US,
in addition to all ROBOTS BUILD THEMSELVES.
therefore, I must reach the conlcusion that i am nothing more than a
DISPOSABLE COG IN A DIRTY MACHINE, burdened with a finite amount of time.
oh, and one final message from the magnetic fields:
"gawd,shmawd, i want my monkey man"

d6,
caring not at this particular moment.

[bringer]

I'm not sure which question I failed to answer, so I pulled the first three you asked:

Why are you an atheist?

I explained that already.

Isn't saying "There is no god" logically equivalent to saying "There is a god"?

I answered this one as well.

Why would someone try to convince themselves or others that there is no god?

I am already convinced, but open to reasonable suggestions. I don't try to convince other people to believe anything.

[HughMungus]

You cannot disprove anything.

If there IS NO evidence of something's existence, it does not exist.

First, please resolve these two seemingly conflicting statements.

[Rob the Wop]

You cannot disprove anything.

If there IS NO evidence of something's existence, it does not exist.

First, please resolve these two seemingly conflicting statements.

You really need to take a class in logic if you're going to enter this style of debate.

a) If x is a supposed member of set y, then to state "there is no x in y"- you have to know all of the members of set y. If set y is infinite (as is the case when you disprove a negative), then it is impossible to know all members of set y. Ergo, you cannot disprove a negative.

b) If x exists, then it has properties of y (look, feel, mass, whatever,...). If x has NO properties (you cannot see, feel, hear, measure, etc.), then x cannot exist (as is the case of an omnipotent being). To define something, you first need to define the conditions by which it exists. If there are no conditions, then x itself is not valid.

One deals with determining if x is a member of an infinite set, the other determines the validity of x being a member of ANY set. A is simple logic and is invalid in any case. B is more complex and deals with metaphysical aspects of existance.

Unfortunately, from prior experience, you will automatically disregard these statements of logic that were old before the Roman Empire existed.

[HughMungus]

You cannot disprove anything.

If there IS NO evidence of something's existence, it does not exist.

First, please resolve these two seemingly conflicting statements.

You really need to take a class in logic if you're going to enter this style of debate.

a) If x is a supposed member of set y, then to state "there is no x in y"- you have to know all of the members of set y. If set y is infinite (as is the case when you disprove a negative), then it is impossible to know all members of set y. Ergo, you cannot disprove a negative.

b) If x exists, then it has properties of y (look, feel, mass, whatever,...). If x has NO properties (you cannot see, feel, hear, measure, etc.), then x cannot exist (as is the case of an omnipotent being). To define something, you first need to define the conditions by which it exists. If there are no conditions, then x itself is not valid.

One deals with determining if x is a member of an infinite set, the other determines the validity of x being a member of ANY set. A is simple logic and is invalid in any case. B is more complex and deals with metaphysical aspects of existance.

Unfortunately, from prior experience, you will automatically disregard these statements of logic that were old before the Roman Empire existed.

Could you put all this in terms of the two conflicting statements?

Sorry if I'm not understanding you. It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know how to spell "existence".

[Sensei]

Play-by-play man: And THERE it is, ladies and gentlemen, Huch Mungus executing the classic "You misspelled (whatever)".

Color man: You had to see that one coming, Bob. Here we are on page six and we expected to see this. It was obvious, to me anyway, if not to Hugh, that he couldn't keep on takin' that beatin' with the logic stick much longer. He may look foolish for going for the "You misspelled (whatever)" card, but really, what other choice did he have? He was on his knees and needed some way, any way, out of that.

Play-by-play man: Well, this competition should be over very shortly now. Actually, it's been over since page two, but someone has neglected to tell Hught that. [Singing} Turn out th' lights, the party's over... {/Singing}

[Rob the Wop]

First, please resolve these two seemingly conflicting statements.

You really need to take a class in logic if you're going to enter this style of debate.

a) If x is a supposed member of set y, then to state "there is no x in y"- you have to know all of the members of set y. If set y is infinite (as is the case when you disprove a negative), then it is impossible to know all members of set y. Ergo, you cannot disprove a negative.

b) If x exists, then it has properties of y (look, feel, mass, whatever,...). If x has NO properties (you cannot see, feel, hear, measure, etc.), then x cannot exist (as is the case of an omnipotent being). To define something, you first need to define the conditions by which it exists. If there are no conditions, then x itself is not valid.

One deals with determining if x is a member of an infinite set, the other determines the validity of x being a member of ANY set. A is simple logic and is invalid in any case. B is more complex and deals with metaphysical aspects of existance.

Unfortunately, from prior experience, you will automatically disregard these statements of logic that were old before the Roman Empire existed.

Could you put all this in terms of the two conflicting statements?

Sorry if I'm not understanding you. It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know how to spell "existence".

I did. Which is why I asked you to take some logic classes previous to reading the post. You will never understand what we're trying to say if you don't understand the basics of logic. A and B are logical breakdowns of the two statements. Seriously, you need to understand this in order to move forward with understanding what we're trying to say.

PS. You're not seriously going to take the nitpick spelling route to 'win' an arguement, are you? It's a new low dude, and you probably realize it.

If not, well... sue me- I'm an engineer. I'm not supposed to be able to spell. I get paid to logically deduce the root cause of silicon hardware/software issues.

[EvilDustBooger]

[HughMungus]

You really need to take a class in logic if you're going to enter this style of debate.

a) If x is a supposed member of set y, then to state "there is no x in y"- you have to know all of the members of set y. If set y is infinite (as is the case when you disprove a negative), then it is impossible to know all members of set y. Ergo, you cannot disprove a negative.

b) If x exists, then it has properties of y (look, feel, mass, whatever,...). If x has NO properties (you cannot see, feel, hear, measure, etc.), then x cannot exist (as is the case of an omnipotent being). To define something, you first need to define the conditions by which it exists. If there are no conditions, then x itself is not valid.

One deals with determining if x is a member of an infinite set, the other determines the validity of x being a member of ANY set. A is simple logic and is invalid in any case. B is more complex and deals with metaphysical aspects of existance.

Unfortunately, from prior experience, you will automatically disregard these statements of logic that were old before the Roman Empire existed.

Could you put all this in terms of the two conflicting statements?

Sorry if I'm not understanding you. It's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know how to spell "existence".

I did. Which is why I asked you to take some logic classes previous to reading the post. You will never understand what we're trying to say if you don't understand the basics of logic. A and B are logical breakdowns of the two statements. Seriously, you need to understand this in order to move forward with understanding what we're trying to say.

PS. You're not seriously going to take the nitpick spelling route to 'win' an arguement, are you? It's a new low dude, and you probably realize it.

If not, well... sue me- I'm an engineer. I'm not supposed to be able to spell. I get paid to logically deduce the root cause of silicon hardware/software issues.

I don't understand how, if you can't disprove something, that you CAN prove that something does not exist simply by there being no evidence that it does exist. In other words, Ranger seems to be saying that you CAN prove that something doesn't exist simply by there being no evidence of its existence (which conflicts with "you can't disprove something"). Understand why I'm still asking the same questions?

[HughMungus]

Play-by-play man: And THERE it is, ladies and gentlemen, Huch Mungus executing the classic "You misspelled (whatever)".

Color man: You had to see that one coming, Bob. Here we are on page six and we expected to see this. It was obvious, to me anyway, if not to Hugh, that he couldn't keep on takin' that beatin' with the logic stick much longer. He may look foolish for going for the "You misspelled (whatever)" card, but really, what other choice did he have? He was on his knees and needed some way, any way, out of that.

Play-by-play man: Well, this competition should be over very shortly now. Actually, it's been over since page two, but someone has neglected to tell Hught that. [Singing} Turn out th' lights, the party's over... {/Singing}

Yes, after he said that I don't understand basic logic and a few pages of me ignoring the personal attacks. They wanted to get personal so I did.

[Rob the Wop]

I don't understand how, if you can't disprove something, that you CAN prove that something does not exist simply by there being no evidence that it does exist. In other words, Ranger seems to be saying that you CAN prove that something doesn't exist simply by there being no evidence of its existence (which conflicts with "you can't disprove something"). Understand why I'm still asking the same questions?

No, I don't quite frankly. I went so far as to give the actual logical breakdown of the statements. They differ. I explained this in the last paragraph of the explaination.

What part of the explaination is giving you trouble? Is it the set/member theory? The metaphysical aspect?

I'll take a stab in the dark on this one as to where the disconnect is. I'm thinking maybe you are confusing the instance of "here is proof of X's non-existance" with the form of the same statement. In order to successfully answer the question of "where is proof of X's non-existence?" you have to, by definition, give the answer in the form of "here is proof of X's non-existence". You are focusing on X's metaphysical existence when looking at the question. We are saying the question itself is invalid due to case A that I had given. It is a simple, logical fact that you cannot disprove a negative- regardless of whether X is a talking purple peanut, a left handed rubber spanner wrench, or God. To do so would mean that you have the ability to know every instance in the set of the universe/inifinity, and know that X is not in it. This is impossible as infinity has no boundries.

Did this help?

[Rob the Wop]

Play-by-play man: And THERE it is, ladies and gentlemen, Huch Mungus executing the classic "You misspelled (whatever)".

Color man: You had to see that one coming, Bob. Here we are on page six and we expected to see this. It was obvious, to me anyway, if not to Hugh, that he couldn't keep on takin' that beatin' with the logic stick much longer. He may look foolish for going for the "You misspelled (whatever)" card, but really, what other choice did he have? He was on his knees and needed some way, any way, out of that.

Play-by-play man: Well, this competition should be over very shortly now. Actually, it's been over since page two, but someone has neglected to tell Hught that. [Singing} Turn out th' lights, the party's over... {/Singing}

Yes, after he said that I don't understand basic logic and a few pages of me ignoring the personal attacks. They wanted to get personal so I did.

For the record, you give the appearance of not understanding basic logic. Do you understand what I mean by that? I have seen you call out fallacies without describing which type and ignore basic logical arguements. Here's a basic primer on logic.

Logic is a set of formal rules to establish that a set of premises eventually lead to a conclusion. You can use truth tables, consistancy trees, or propositional calculus (there are other forms of logic in debate, but I won't address them here). It's fairly strict if used correctly. The premises in an argument do not have to be correct for an arguement to be valid, but an arguement is not valid if the logic is flawed.

All grass is purple.
My uncle Bob is made of grass.
My uncle Bob is purple.

This is a perfectly logical argument, but the premises are invalid.
Whereas:

Grass can be green.
My uncle Bob is wearing clothes.
My uncle Bob is wearing something green.

The premises and conclusion are valid, but the logic is flawed.
Either case can result in the arguement being invalid.

[HughMungus]

I don't understand how, if you can't disprove something, that you CAN prove that something does not exist simply by there being no evidence that it does exist. In other words, Ranger seems to be saying that you CAN prove that something doesn't exist simply by there being no evidence of its existence (which conflicts with "you can't disprove something"). Understand why I'm still asking the same questions?

No, I don't quite frankly. I went so far as to give the actual logical breakdown of the statements. They differ. I explained this in the last paragraph of the explaination.

What part of the explaination is giving you trouble? Is it the set/member theory? The metaphysical aspect?

I'll take a stab in the dark on this one as to where the disconnect is. I'm thinking maybe you are confusing the instance of "here is proof of X's non-existance" with the form of the same statement. In order to successfully answer the question of "where is proof of X's non-existence?" you have to, by definition, give the answer in the form of "here is proof of X's non-existence". You are focusing on X's metaphysical existence when looking at the question. We are saying the question itself is invalid due to case A that I had given. It is a simple, logical fact that you cannot disprove a negative- regardless of whether X is a talking purple peanut, a left handed rubber spanner wrench, or God. To do so would mean that you have the ability to know every instance in the set of the universe/inifinity, and know that X is not in it. This is impossible as infinity has no boundries.

Did this help?

So would it be true to say that the statement "There is no god" cannot be proven? Please, just a true or false answer.

[Rob the Wop]

So would it be true to say that the statement "There is no god" cannot be proven? Please, just a true or false answer.

No, it is not a true or false statement. It is an invalid statement. Kind of like dividing by zero in the mathematics world. This is an equivilant in the world of logic. "There is an X" is a statement that can be proven simply be finding an example of X, so it is a valid statement. "There is no X" is a logically invalid statement.

Get it? "There is no X" cannot ever be proven, God has absolutely nothing to do with it- it just happens to be what was filled in the blank. Stop focusing on God and focus on the logic behind the statement. That is what everyone has been saying all along.

[Ranger Genius]

Jesus christ on a crutch. You're worse than Donald Rumsfeld. Okay, let's go over this in much more simplistic terms.

One cannot, and need not, prove that something does not exist. If something doesn't exist, there's no evidence one way or another. Let's put it into a sullogism that demonstrates why the two statements that tied your brain in a knot are not contradictory:

If AND ONLY IF something exists, then there is some way to measure or observe it (evidence).
There is no way to measure or observe god (there is not--because there cannot be--any evidence).
Therefore: GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

So you cannot measure that which does not exist, and therefore cannot provide evidence for or against it. Is that clear to you yet?

And you're ignoring my question:

Why do you believe there is no easter bunny?

[EvilDustBooger]

[d6]

Given the day, isnt it more relevant to enter into a discussion regarding the (non) existence of Leprechauns?

which serves merely as a precursor to:
"Hippity-Hoppity, the Easter Bunnies on his way"

Platonic Leviticus-types need not apply,

d6,
Robotic
BunnyJam
Observer

[HughMungus]

So would it be true to say that the statement "There is no god" cannot be proven? Please, just a true or false answer.

No, it is not a true or false statement. It is an invalid statement. Kind of like dividing by zero in the mathematics world. This is an equivilant in the world of logic. "There is an X" is a statement that can be proven simply be finding an example of X, so it is a valid statement. "There is no X" is a logically invalid statement.

Get it? "There is no X" cannot ever be proven, God has absolutely nothing to do with it- it just happens to be what was filled in the blank. Stop focusing on God and focus on the logic behind the statement. That is what everyone has been saying all along.

If the statements "there is no god" and (as Ranger just said), "God does not exist" are invalid, why am I repeatedly being exactly these two things?

[EvilDustBooger]

I think I see an event horizon coming.......

....nope. sorry my mistake....

[Rob the Wop]

So would it be true to say that the statement "There is no god" cannot be proven? Please, just a true or false answer.

No, it is not a true or false statement. It is an invalid statement. Kind of like dividing by zero in the mathematics world. This is an equivilant in the world of logic. "There is an X" is a statement that can be proven simply be finding an example of X, so it is a valid statement. "There is no X" is a logically invalid statement.

Get it? "There is no X" cannot ever be proven, God has absolutely nothing to do with it- it just happens to be what was filled in the blank. Stop focusing on God and focus on the logic behind the statement. That is what everyone has been saying all along.

If the statements "there is no god" and (as Ranger just said), "God does not exist" are invalid, why am I repeatedly being exactly these two things?

I don't know. Also, since you clearly don't understand it, you aren't really saying "there is no God". What you are saying (asking) is "is there proof that there is no God?"

Until you understand basic logic, we will simply be going in circles. I will show that your premise is invalid, and then you will act like a parrot. Goodbye Hugh, enjoy whatever conclusion you have come to. It's obvious you've never been interested in hearing why I chose atheism.

[HughMungus]

No, it is not a true or false statement. It is an invalid statement. Kind of like dividing by zero in the mathematics world. This is an equivilant in the world of logic. "There is an X" is a statement that can be proven simply be finding an example of X, so it is a valid statement. "There is no X" is a logically invalid statement.

Get it? "There is no X" cannot ever be proven, God has absolutely nothing to do with it- it just happens to be what was filled in the blank. Stop focusing on God and focus on the logic behind the statement. That is what everyone has been saying all along.

If the statements "there is no god" and (as Ranger just said), "God does not exist" are invalid, why am I repeatedly being exactly these two things?

I don't know.

This is your answer? I say, "You guys are telling me that it's invalid to say that god does not exist yet you tell me god does not exist, could you please resolve this paradox?" and your answer is "I don't know"?

Also, since you clearly don't understand it, you aren't really saying "there is no God". What you are saying (asking) is "is there proof that there is no God?"

No. I'm saying, "Since you say that the statement 'There is no god' is invalid, how is it you're an atheist?"

Until you understand basic logic, we will simply be going in circles. I will show that your premise is invalid, and then you will act like a parrot. Goodbye Hugh, enjoy whatever conclusion you have come to. It's obvious you've never been interested in hearing why I chose atheism.

I am interested. But your reasoning is full of holes (see above).

[Rockdad]

Did God create everything that exists?
Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning
Challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything
That exists?"
A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil.
And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works
Define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's
Hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself,
Boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the
Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question,
Professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you
Never been cold?" The other students snickered at the young man's
Question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According
To the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence
Of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
Transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or
Transmit energy.

Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter
Becomes
Inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist.
We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does
Not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light.
Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism
To break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of
Each color.

You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break
Into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a
Certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this
Correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when
There is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have
Already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's
Inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence
Everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least
It does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It
Is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe
The
Absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what
Happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like
The cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes
When there is no light."

The professor sat down.


The young man's name ... Albert Einstein