THE BLOG SOLUTION: the wrong premise

God vs Science?

The chain letter (below) begins with a title that is divisive and in error. God is not "vs." anything or anyone. God is "for" the Scientific, and every other, community. I understand the sentiment of those who wrote this but let's look at it from another perspective.

We are, for the lack of a better phrase, comparing apples and oranges. God is on a separate plain from the Scientific (intellectual) community, the Religious (spiritual) community, and everyone else. We (human beings) have no real concept of a Supernatural, Sovereign, Holy, Pure and Perfect Creator (Isaiah 55:8).

The "vs." is not with God and Science, the vs. is with the Scientific and Religious communities.

The Scientific community gets the "religious" fired up by stating "anyone who believes in the unseen is unlearned and kooky", while the "religious" get scientists fired up by attacking their intellect.

I have noticed that the majority of discussions, and spam (like the one here), concerning our origin or the attributes of God, provides no real evidence for their conclusions and have no understanding of God's true character at all.

First of all, full discloser; I fall unapologetically, in the "religious community". But read-on, I'm confident all who read this will be pleasantly surprised.

Again, God is not against any of His creation. Right from the beginning God entrusted everything on earth to Man (that is mankind). Therefore, all scientific discoveries and everything else, God either directs or allows. The key here is not to argue beliefs; the key is to understand God's character.

Now, if you are not sure there is a God or if you are confident there is no God then you are still in God's graces. The God of the Bible puts it on this wise: Whosoever will can come; that is, whosoever wants to believe in Him can (John 6:37), and therefore, whosoever doesn't is free to not believe.

This is wonderful; it reveals Gods character. You see, God (being perfect) desires a perfect love relationship with the crown of His creation (that would be us humans). Perfection requires that a love relationship consists of two willing parties. This confirms that we have free will. No other creature on earth has the capability to have their existence here on earth completely changed for the better by making a willful choice to love. This should be what the "religious" community should be focusing on and not attacking intellectuals.

Now back to the argument. Since we've established that God is not in this debate at all; we can focus on the parties that are involved; the Scientific and Religious communities. The disagreement stems around the origin and demise of mankind. Since none of us were there in the beginning or have been in the afterlife, yet; let's focus on what we do know somewhat, the here and now. There are only two lifestyle choices, or options, available to us because either; there is a God or there is no God:

If there is no God then, You and I are free to choose how we live down here and have no hope for anything after we're gone. The best we can wish for is something "good" but we can only wish and speculate.

If there is a God then, we need to humble ourselves and simply ask Him for revelation. Although, the "religious" community claims several gods; it behooves us all to genuinely call out, from the heart, and prayerfully ask for clarity.

With that said, I would be remiss not to give you my belief. I believe there is a God; genuine faith changes lives; it changed mine. Christ came to give life (John 10:10, John 20:31). Mankind, being spiritually dead, was in desparte need; God met that need in Jesus Christ. The way that lives are changed when someone puts their trust in Christ, and the subsequent revelation that comes in careful study of The Bible has convinced me that God loves you; no matter who you are and what you believe (John 3:16).

The problem is that He cannot co-exist with imperfection (Rev. 21:27); and knowing that we are imperfect, totally depraved actually (Rom 3:11-12); without the capability to reach up to Him; He reached down to us. Christ came to redeem mankind; to restore the personal love relationship that was in the Garden of Eden before the fall of mankind (Luke 19:10). Again, whosoever will, can come (John 10:9; Matt 11:28).

God is not in the “us” vs. “them” business, He is in the saving business. He has everyone’s best interest at heart. Everything He does, or allows, is right, just and will end according to His perfect plan.

Conclusion: The desire of the "religious" should be that the scientist, and everyone else, experience God's best; an abundant life here and a home in Heaven some day. An effort to out-wit intellectuals is not our calling; we are to reach others for HIm. He loves us all, and wants us to be delivered from a sin cursed world that has gone desperately wrong. The Gospel is an off offense, but we are not to be offensive (1 Cor 15:3, Rom 5:8, Rom 12:18).

My prayer is that you Consider Christ. (Rom 10:13).

--------------- Letter end ---------------

VERY INTERESTING!!! READ ON TO THE END ....

"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?' 'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer,
even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give
the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella.. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil
in this world?' 'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and
according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this
world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them ?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom.. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you
ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to
that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat,
but we don't have anything called 'cold'.
We can hit down to 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 the lowest -458 degrees.
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 (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. 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, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. 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, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed..'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains..
'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as
something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. 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, just the
absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester,indeed.
'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 preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making
earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone
in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. '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.. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you
have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old
man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example 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.

PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921.....

--------------- Letter end ---------------