agar dapat menjelaskannya lebih jelas maka dimohon bantuannya utk menerjemahkan isi dr kedua link ini
KutipThe Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.
The second Christian 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, sir, just the absence of it."........Silence.
The professor replied,"First . I have never said that cold is the opposite of heat. By your implying that that I did, you are putting words in my mouth. Cold is a relative measurement of heat especially below zero. Any temperature of heat under zero can be described by the definition of cold. As I said that cold is not the opposite of heat, it is merely a description of heat in relation to its relative state to absolute zero. Furthermore, I can extend the premise of your arguement and apply it to the description of size. There is no such thing as shrinkage because being small is just the absence of being big or absence of positive growth in size.
The smallest particle in this universe is electron that resides in an atom, Since anything that shrinks will eventually end up not going any smaller, can we say that the process of shrinkage never exists?"
The Christian is perplexed and confused. This Christian is really ready to give up knowing otherwise that he would make a scene out of himself and be the laughing stock of others for the rest of the semester.
Silence sweeps through the room. After a brief pause, the crowd is thrilled and thrown to the edges of their seats between this exchange of words.
A piece of paper drops from the Christian's hand. On the paper is a list of questions that the Christian has prepared previously which he perceives now to be too ridiculous to bring up. As the Christian is almost ready to make his way back to his seat, he is asked to stay further more to challenge the professor. He reluctantly obliges.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor? I know it is now a stupid question."
"That's a dumb question,right on, son. What is night if it isn't a state of darkness? What are you getting at...? Didnt God say in your Bible,' let there be dark' Are you getting at denying this so-called act of God?"
"So you say there IS such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..., speaking in your own term as according to your Bible....and No in the sense that darkness is a state and not a thing."
"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 is what I said, you idiot. I said that darkness is not a thing just as being hungry,being small, being rich,being poor, being dark, being light is not a thing. Well darkness can be the state of relative presence of something."professed the professor.
"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 darker darkness, professor?"
"Of course, only idiot like you would come up with the question of misleading somebody into acknowledging that darkness is a thing. Can you give me a jar of "small", "hungry". How about your God which claims to be omnipotent?"
"SCIENCE IS NOT FLAWED,ONLY OUR CURRENT STATE OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF
SCIENCE IS. Science exists long before man roamed the world. All answers are already out there, they are just awaiting discovery and the right piece of invention to dig them out. " the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar in reaction to the professor's insights. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent.
The Christian looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter.
The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor.
"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, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."
The professor replied:" Well, let me rectify your flaw. Let's say a blind person never sees you as an entity, can you say that you never exist. The world can see but can be blinded by their obesession over some sugar-coated misleading propaganda released by some unscrupulous politicans or religious leaders.
The class is in chaos and cheers for the professor in ecstasy.
The Christian sits in shame... Because that is the state in which he is originally to be there for.
terjemahin jg hasil klarifikasinya
KutipEinstein Proves God Exists
In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.
Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)
Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.
Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.
(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)
Specious logic
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)
The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.
Defining evil
Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.
The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.
You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.
Augustine's theodicy
Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.
Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Einstein and religion
From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.
"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
Kutipan Anda yang pertama itu adalah Urban Legend berjudul Professor Atheis vs Christian Student. Versi yang Anda kutip tersebut adalah versi orang Atheis yang menggambarkan kekalahan Christian Student.
Versi yang asli ditulis oleh orang Theis (Kristen) untuk mengolok-olok orang Atheis. Pada versi yang asli, Christian Student mengalahkan Professor Atheis.
Nah, pada kutipan Anda tersebut orang Atheis menambahkan 3 paragraf terakhir sehingga Professor Atheis berbalik menjadi menang.
Ini sebenarnya sempat dibahas di Sub Forum Agama & Filosofi dengan Topik: The World as I See It - An Essay By Einstein.
Sedangkan kutipan Anda yang kedua adalah "klarifikasi" dari orang Atheis terhadap urban legend nersi Theis. Menurut orang Atheis, logika yang dipakai di urban legend tersebut keliru. Dan Einstein tidak mungkin menjadi Mahasiswa yang melawan Professor Atheis. Karena Einstein bukanlah Theis.
Einstein? Iya, soalnya ada versi Urban Legend Christian Student vs Professor Atheist yang mencatut nama Einstein yang berperan sebagai Student.
Ada beberapa urban legend lain dengan alur cerita lain tetapi tetap melibatkan Professor Atheis yang digambarkan arogan tapi akhirnya dipermalukan.
Ada juga versi Islam..Di mana kata Christian Student diganti dengan Moslem Student..
Untuk menterjemahkan, Anda bisa minta bantuan Google Translate..
Kutip dari: Fariz Abdullah pada September 28, 2012, 10:46:42 PM
Untuk menterjemahkan, Anda bisa minta bantuan Google Translate..
No Google Translate, Google Translate hasil terjemahannya acak-acakan
saya pinginnya terjemahan langsung
plis donk, soalnya saya gak terlalu bisa bahasa Inggris
saya pingin sebarin ke publik soalnya udh pd nelen urban legend salah biar pd tau
Kutip dari: IndoManiak pada September 29, 2012, 08:44:32 AM
No Google Translate, Google Translate hasil terjemahannya acak-acakan
saya pinginnya terjemahan langsung
plis donk, soalnya saya gak terlalu bisa bahasa Inggris
saya pingin sebarin ke publik soalnya udh pd nelen urban legend salah biar pd tau
Kalo Anda gak terlalu bisa Bahasa Inggris, bagaimana Anda bisa menyimpulkan kalau urban legend tsb salah? Lagian bagaimana Anda bisa surfing ke website berbahasa Inggris?
Oh ya, nampaknya bukan hanya ada penambahan di paragraf terakhir, tetapi ada juga paragraf di tengah yang disisipkan..Dan kutipan tersebut sebenarnya tdk lengkap. Ada paragraf2 awal yang tidak ditampilkan.
Semoga ada rekan2 yang bersedia menterjemahkan untuk Anda..
Kutip dari: Fariz Abdullah pada September 29, 2012, 10:16:28 AM
Kalo Anda gak terlalu bisa Bahasa Inggris, bagaimana Anda bisa menyimpulkan kalau urban legend tsb salah? Lagian bagaimana Anda bisa surfing ke website berbahasa Inggris?
sebenernya saya tau dikit2 dr beberapa kata2nya tp
gak terlalu bisa bahasa Inggris alias tau bahasa Inggrisnya cmn sedikit aja
Begini saja, saya mencoba membuat intisari dari urban legend ini. Mohon diluruskan jika saya keliru.
Menurut saya, inilah versi asli dari urban legend tsb :
[pranala luar disembunyikan, sila masuk atau daftar.]Ini sebenarnya debat klasik tentang eksistensi Tuhan. Urban legend ini awalnya dibuat pihak Theis untuk menjelaskan 2 hal pokok theologis yang terus dipertanyakan pihak Atheis :
1. Jika Tuhan baik, mengapa ada kejahatan di muka bumi?
2. Tuhan itu tidak ada, karena tidak ada bukti keberadaanNya (baca : bukti empiris sesuai kaidah science)
Pihak Theis mencoba menjelaskan secara logika filosofis.
1. Kejahatan itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah "ketiadaan" kebaikan. Pointnya adalah : Tuhan itu baik, menciptakan kebaikan. Tetapi Tuhan memberi "freewill" (kehendak bebas) kepada manusia untuk berbuat baik atau tidak.
Di Urban Legend itu, sang Mahasiswa menuduh sang Professor terjebak dalam "premise of duality". Bahwa ada panas berarti ada dingin. Ada gelap ada terang. ada kehidupan ada kematian. Padahal sebenarnya :
- Dingin itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan panas.
- Gelap itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan cahaya.
- kematian itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kehidupan.
- Kejahatan itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kebaikan.
2. Untuk membantah bahwa Tuhan itu tidak ada karena tidak bisa diindera, sang penulis Urban Legend memberi analogi, karena tidak ada yang pernah melihat otak professor, mendengar otak Professor, mendengar, mencium, menyentuh otak professor, maka berdasarkan hukum empiris dan protocol science maka bisa dikatakan Sang Professor tidak punya otak.
Dan cerita berakhir dengan kemenangan sang mahasiswa.
Tentu saja logika - logika filosofis yang ada di urban legend versi Theis ini dibantah keras oleh Atheis.
Lihat :
[pranala luar disembunyikan, sila masuk atau daftar.].
CMIIW
loh kok cmn intisarinya aja sih :( kan gak relevan karena gak seluruh isinya dijabarkan :( belum lagi dgn hasil klarifikasinya yg jg belum dijelaskan dlm bahasa Indonesia :( lha, Anda sendiri bisa bahasa Inggris kok gak nerjemahin seluruhnya :( ayo donk, minimal ya intisari hasil klarifikasinya gitu :(
Soalnya banyak sih, jadi capek..Coba aja masuk ke Forum lain, misalnya Forum Penterjemahan..mungkin bisa membantu..:)
saya coba ya. terjemahan ini tidak sepenuhnya diartikan sesuai terjemahannya karena ada beberapa kata dan kalimat yang apabila diterjemahkan sesuai terjemahannya maka akan terdengar tidak cocok dalam perkataan orang Indonesia. sehingga ada beberapa kata dan kalimat yang saya terjemahkan dengan interpretasi saya sendiri.
Orang kristen melihat sekeliling ruangan. "pak, anda membuat beberapa point menarik. sekarang saya mempunyai satu pertanyaan untuk anda. apakah panas itu ada?"
"ya," jawab profesor. "panas itu ada."
"apakah dingin itu ada?"
"ya, nak. dingin itu juga ada."
sang profesor tersenyum. ruangan mendadak menjadi sangat dingin.
orang Kristen tsb kemudian melanjutkan. "anda bisa memiliki banyak panas, bahkan lebih panas, super panas, mega panas, panas membara, sedikit panas atau tidak ada panas, tapi kita tidak memiliki 'dingin'. kita bisa bisa mencapai 458 derajat di bawah nol, yang mana tidak ada panas, tetapi kita tidak bisa lebih jauh lagi daripada itu. tidak ada yang namanya dingin, kalau tidak seperti itu, maka kita akan bisa lebih dingin lagi daripada 458 - pak, anda tahu, dingin hanyalah suatu kata yang kita gunakan untuk menggambarkan ketiadaan panas. kita tidak bisa mengukur dingin. kalau panas, kita bisa mengukur unit thermis* karena panas adalah energi. dingin bukan kebalikan dari panas, pak, dingin hanya ketiadaan dari panas saja.".... suasana hening.
(*saya tidak paham maksudnya 'unit thermis', istilah fisika mungkin)
profesor menjawab, "pertama-tama, saya tidak pernah berkata bahwa dingin adalah kebalikan dari panas. dan oleh karena anda secara tersirat menganggap saya percaya bahwa dingin adalah kebalikan panas, anda sebenarnya telah mengarang cerita soal pendapat saya. dingin adalah pengukuran relatif dari panas terutama di bawah nol. berapapun temperatur dari panas dibawah nol bisa digambarkan sebagai definisi dingin. sebagaimana yang saya katakan, bahwa dingin bukan kebalikan daripada panas, ini sebenarnya hanyalah gambaran dari panas terkait tataran relatifnya terhadap nol mutlak. tidak ada yang namanya pengecilan karena menjadi kecil adalah ketiadaan dari menjadi besar atau keadaan bahwa suatu ukuran positif membesar. partikel terkecil di jagad raya adalah elektron yang berada di dalam sebuah atom, dan sejak apapun yang mengecil pada akhirnya akan berakhir tidak akan lebih mengecil lagi, bisakah kita mengatakan proses pengecilan tidak ada?"
orang kristen tsb pusing dan bingung. orang kristen ini benar-benar siap menyerah ketika ia tahu kalau ia tidak menyerah, ia akan ditertawakan orang-orang sepanjang sisa semesternya. seluruh ruangan hening. setelah jeda sejenak, kerumunan hadirin bergemuruh dan senang menuju batas kursi mereka di antara pertukaran kata-kata*
(*saya tidak paham apa maksudnya, mungkin maksudnya adalah para hadirin menjadi heboh atau antusias karena debatnya makin seru)
selembar kertas dipersiapkan oleh orang kristen tsb. di kertas tsb terdapat daftar pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang dipersiapkan oleh orang kristen tsb sebelumnya yang sekarang ia anggap konyol kalau dilontarkan. ketika orang kristen tsb hendak kembali ke tempat duduknya, ia diminta untuk menetap untuk waktu yang lebih lama menantang profesor tsb. ia dengan agak malas mematuhinya.
"adakah kegelapan, profesor? saya tahu ini adalah pertanyaan bodoh."
"itu memang pertanyaan bodoh, nak. apa itu malam kalau tidak ada tataran dari kegelapan? apa yang akan anda dapatkan...? tidakkah Tuhan berkata di dalam Alkitab anda, 'biarkan ini menjadi gelap' apakah anda akan menyangkal tindakan yang disebut-sebut tidakan Tuhan?"
"jadi menurut anda kegelapan itu ada?"
"ya... kalau merujuk pada istilah berdasarkan Alkitab anda... dan Tidak berdasarkan bahwa kegelapan adalah tataran dan bukanlah suatu benda."
"anda salah lagi, pak. kegelapan bukanlah benda, kegelapan adalah keadaan dari sesuatu. anda bisa memiliki cahaya redup, cahaya normal, cahaya terang, cahaya kilat, tapi kalau anda tidak memiliki cahaya secara terus-menerus (terpancarkan), anda tak punya apa-apa. dan itulah yang disebut kegelapan, bukankah begitu?"
"itulah yang saya maksud, idiot. saya katakan bahwa kegelapan bukan sebuah benda. sebagai mana menjadi lapar, menjadi kecil, menjadi kaya, menjadi miskin, menjadi gelap, menjadi terang itu semua bukanlah benda. kegelapan bisa dianggap tataran dari kehadiran yang relatif dari sesuatu" aku sang profesor.
"itulah pengertian yang kita gunakan untuk mendefinisikan kata tsb (kegelapan). pada kenyataannya, kegelapan bukanlah benda. kalau kegelapan adalah benda, anda akan bisa membuat kegelapan lebih gelap dan memberi saya kendinya. bisakah anda... memberikan sebuah kendi berisi kegelapan yang lebih gelap, profesor?"
"tentu saja, hanya idiot seperti anda yang akan bertanya pertanyaan seperti itu yang bisa menyesatkan orang dan membuatnya mengakui bahwa kegelapan adalah suatu benda. bisakah anda memberikan saya kendi berisi "kecil", "lapar", bagaimana dengan Tuhanmu yang mengklaim sebagai Maha Kuasa?"
"SAINS TIDAK CACAT, YANG CACAT HANYALAH KURANGNYA PEMAHAMAN KITA SAJA TERHADAP SAINS. sains sudah ada jauh sebelum manusia menjelajah dunia. semua jawaban sudah tersedia di luar sana, mereka hanya menunggu penemuan dan dan celah yang tepat untuk menggali mereka keluar."
sembur sang profesor.
seisi kelas menjadi gempar terhadap wawasan profesor. orang kristen tsb masih bertahan hingga keributan mereda.
"untuk melanjutkan point yang anda buat sebelumnya kepada siswa yang lain, bolehkah saya berikan sebuah contoh dari apa yang saya maksud?"
profesor tsb tetap diam dengan tenang.
orang kristen tsb melihat sekeliling ruangan.
"adakah orang di dalam kelas ini yang pernah melihat otak profesor?"
seisi kelas tertawa.
orang kristen menunjuk guru pembimbingnya yang sudah tua tsb.
"adakah orang di sini yang pernah mendengar otak profesor ini... merasakan otak profesor ini, menyentuh atau menghirup otak profesor ini?"
tidak ada orang yang mengaku. orang kristen tsb menggelengkan kepalanya dengan iba.
"terbukti tidak ada disini orang yang menangkap otak profesor ini dengan inderanya. berdasarkan peraturan empiris, teruji, protokol yang sudah terbukti, sains berkata bahwa profesor ini tidak punya otak."
profesor tsb menanggapi: "mari kita perbaiki kesalahan anda. katakanlah ada seorang buta yang tidak pernah melihat wujud anda, bisakah anda katakan bahwa anda tidak ada? dunia bisa melihat tapi bisa dibutakan oleh obsesi mereka terhadap propaganda sesat yang dikeluarkan oleh politikus jahat atau pemimpin keagamaan."
seisi kelas menjadi ribut dan bersorak-sorai dengan riang gembira untuk sang profesor.
orang kristen tsb terdiam dan merasa malu.... karena disitulah keadaan yang sebenarnya paling pantas untuknya.
berhubung yang menang adalah profesor atheis, berarti cerita ini adalah versi orang atheis.
ternyata banyak sekali versinya, coba anda ke google kemudian ketik kata kunci di bawah ini :
458 derajat di bawah nol
saya baru tahu kalau temperatur tidak bisa lebih rendah daripada 458 derajat di bawah nol. dan saya baru tahu kalau dingin bukan kebalikan dari panas.
saya ingin tahu, apakah jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik? atau keadaan dimana cantik tidak ada?
@atas
Thanks ya atas terjemahannya ;)
soal kata2 yg tidak diketahui penterjemahannya nanti saya akan tanyakan ke forum ahli Indonesia-inggris :)
tp yg hasil klarifikasinya jg diterjemahin donk ;) :
http://www.forumsains.com/pseudo-science-dan-science-fiction/kesalahan-penjelasan-sains/msg137250/#msg137250
Kutip dari: nʇǝʌ∀ pada Oktober 03, 2012, 07:30:37 PM
ternyata banyak sekali versinya, coba anda ke google kemudian ketik kata kunci di bawah ini :
458 derajat di bawah nol
saya baru tahu kalau temperatur tidak bisa lebih rendah daripada 458 derajat di bawah nol. dan saya baru tahu kalau dingin bukan kebalikan dari panas.
saya ingin tahu, apakah jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik? atau keadaan dimana cantik tidak ada?
-458 derajat itu dalam satuan Fahrenheit, lebih tepatnya −459.67°F. Jika anda menggunakan satuan SI, nilainya sama dengan 0 Kelvin (tidak perlu pakai simbol derajat), sehingga sering disebut suhu nol mutlak
[pranala luar disembunyikan, sila masuk atau daftar.]. Secara mikroskopis, panas merupakan gerakan dari pertikel penyusun suatu materi/medium. Pada suhu 0 mutlak, secara teoritis partikel-pertikel tersebut sama sekali tidak bergerak, meskipun dalam praktiknya mustahil dicapai. Seingat saya hal ini sudah diajarkan di tingkat SMP.
Kutip dari: nʇǝʌ∀ pada Oktober 03, 2012, 07:30:37 PM
...
saya ingin tahu, apakah jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik? atau keadaan dimana cantik tidak ada?
IMO, jelek itu kebalikan dari cantik, karena tidak ada nilai mutlak untuk sifat tersebut. Hal serupa juga dijumpai dalam pasangan kata baik-jahat, kaya-miskin, sehat-sakit, dll.
Ini berbeda dengan suhu dan intensitas cahaya yang dibicarakan dalam cerita di atas. Pasangan kata lain dalam kategori ini antara lain berat-ringan, panjang-pendek, besar-kecil.
ehm ehm, kok hasil klarifikasinya belum diterjemahin ya :-*
KutipEinstein Proves God Exists
In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.
Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)
Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.
Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.
(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)
Specious logic
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)
The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.
Defining evil
Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.
The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.
You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.
Augustine's theodicy
Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.
Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Einstein and religion
From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.
"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
Kutip
- Dingin itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan panas.
- Gelap itu tidak ada. Itu hanyalah ketiadaan cahaya.
- kematian itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kehidupan.
- Kejahatan itu tidak ada, Itu hanyalah ketiadaan kebaikan.
dari versi kontra atheisme atau pro theisme, pihak theis mengatakan bahwa tidak ada kejahatan. yang ada hanyalah ketiadaan dari kebaikan. bukankah ini setara dengan cantik-jelek ? dimana ukurannya adalah subjektif.
lantas di dalam cerita versi theis tsb, bagaimana mungkin jahat-baik bisa dianalogikan/disetarakan dengan dingin-panas ?
adakah barometer kebaikan? ketika seseorang berbuat sesuatu, sebagian orang menganggapnya jahat, baik, atau netral.
logical fallacy detected
sial banget sih :'( kok belum ada yg nerjemahin hasil klarifikasinya :'(
KutipEinstein Proves God Exists
In this viral anecdote of unknown origin, a university student named Albert Einstein humiliates his atheist professor by proving that God exists.
Description: Urban legend
Circulating since: 2004 (this version)
Status: False (see details below)
Analysis: This apocryphal tale of a college-age Albert Einstein proving the existence of God to his atheist professor first began circulating in 2004. One reason we know it isn't true is that the same story was already making the rounds five years earlier with no mention of Einstein in it at all.
Another reason we know it isn't true is that Einstein was a self-described agnostic who didn't believe in what he called a "personal God." He wrote: "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
And, finally, we know it isn't true because Einstein was a careful thinker who wouldn't have abided the specious logic attributed to him here. As written, the argument neither disproves the existence of evil nor proves the existence of God.
(Note: None of what follows is intended to disprove the existence of God, nor suffices to do so.)
Specious logic
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon, a form of energy. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things. (It's helpful to recognize that the proper antonym for cold isn't heat; it's hot.)
The same applies to light (in this context a noun denoting a form of energy), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists" in the same sense that light does. We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.
So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.
The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.
Defining evil
Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts." It doesn't follow.
The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. What's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: Evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.
You may wish to claim that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'll have launched a whole new debate, not finished one.
Augustine's theodicy
Albeit thoroughly butchered in the above instance, the argument as a whole is a classic example of what's known in Christian apologetics as a theodicy — a defense of the proposition that God can be understood to be all-good and all-powerful despite having created a world in which evil exists. This particular form of theodicy, based on the idea that evil is to good as darkness is to light (the former, in each case, supposedly being reducible to the absence of the latter), is usually credited to Augustine of Hippo, who first laid out the argument some 1600 years ago. God didn't create evil, Augustine concluded; evil enters the world — which is to say, good departs from it — via man's free will.
Augustine's theodicy opens up an even bigger can of philosophical worms — the problem of free will vs. determinism — but we needn't go there. Suffice it to say that even if one finds the free will loophole persuasive, it doesn't prove that God exists. It only proves that the existence of evil isn't inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
Einstein and religion
From everything we know about Albert Einstein, all this scholastic navel gazing would have bored him to tears. As a theoretical physicist he found the order and complexity of the universe awe-inspiring enough to call the experience "religious." As a sensitive human being he took a profound interest in questions of morality. But none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being.
"It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image," he explained when asked about the religious implications of relativity. "For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
Highlight dari klarifikasi itu adalah:
Lawan kata: panas (hot) & dingin (cold), cahaya (light) & gelap (dark)
Panas merupakan energi, sehingga panas adalah kata benda (noun, n). Sementara, dingin adalah kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan tingkat ketiadaan energi panas.
Begitu juga dengan cahaya (light) adalah energi, jd berupa kata benda. Oleh krn itu, gelap merupakan sebuah kondisi (adj) yang menggambarkan ketiadaan benda berupa cahaya tadi.
Beberapa org berargumen, jika Tuhan mahabaik kenapa Dia menciptakan kejahatan (evil) di dunia ini?
Argumen balasannya adalah: Tuhan tidak menciptakan kejahatan. Tuhan hanya menciptakan kebaikan dalam diri manusia. Hanya saja, Tuhan memberikan kebebasan pada diri manusia. Sejalan dg pola pikir di atas, kejahatan adl kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan kondisi tingkat ketiadaan kebaikan (noun) dalam diri manusia - karena pilihan/kehendak manusia itu sendiri.
Itu adl terjemahan intisari artikel klarifikasi pd posting sebelumnya.
Kutip dari: Dhantez pada Oktober 20, 2012, 12:36:32 PM
Highlight dari klarifikasi itu adalah:
Lawan kata: panas (hot) & dingin (cold), cahaya (light) & gelap (dark)
Panas merupakan energi, sehingga panas adalah kata benda (noun, n). Sementara, dingin adalah kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan tingkat ketiadaan energi panas.
Begitu juga dengan cahaya (light) adalah energi, jd berupa kata benda. Oleh krn itu, gelap merupakan sebuah kondisi (adj) yang menggambarkan ketiadaan benda berupa cahaya tadi.
Beberapa org berargumen, jika Tuhan mahabaik kenapa Dia menciptakan kejahatan (evil) di dunia ini?
Argumen balasannya adalah: Tuhan tidak menciptakan kejahatan. Tuhan hanya menciptakan kebaikan dalam diri manusia. Hanya saja, Tuhan memberikan kebebasan pada diri manusia. Sejalan dg pola pikir di atas, kejahatan adl kata sifat (adj) yang menggambarkan kondisi tingkat ketiadaan kebaikan (noun) dalam diri manusia - karena pilihan/kehendak manusia itu sendiri.
Itu adl terjemahan intisari artikel klarifikasi pd posting sebelumnya.
kok cmn Highlightnya sih :( saya maunya kan semuanya dijelasin :(
Intinya:
Artile yang disodorkan di awal adalah urband legend ngawur, baik dari segi cerita (Einsten gak mungkin bicara macam itu, karena dia agnosti) dan kesalahan logika dingin sebagai ketiadaan panas atau gelap sebagai ketiadaan terang).
Kutip dari: Pi-One pada Oktober 26, 2012, 08:19:50 PM
Intinya:
Artile yang disodorkan di awal adalah urband legend ngawur, baik dari segi cerita (Einsten gak mungkin bicara macam itu, karena dia agnosti) dan kesalahan logika dingin sebagai ketiadaan panas atau gelap sebagai ketiadaan terang).
kok "intinya" sih :( disertai penjelasan lengkap dr terjemahannya donk biar jelas :(