|  habibcs | Jan 20, 7:25am | An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
science has with God (The Almighty).
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is
this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God
good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
Student does not answer.
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
Student has no answer.
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the
world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says
your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, 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. Cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of
it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is
life and then there is 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?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where
the argument is going.)
Student: 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 not a scientist but a preacher? (The
class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's
brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it? 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, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all
that keeps things moving & alive.
.
.
.
.
WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT STUDENT WAS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NB: I believe you have enjoyed the conversation...and if so...you'll
probably want your friends/colleagues to enjoy the same...won't you? So do
forward them to increase their knowledge... this is a true story, and the
student was none other than.........
Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the president of India. |
|
|  |  438731 | Jan 20, 7:43am | Is this pile of horse shit still doing the rounds? What makes me laugh is all the comments in parentheses: "The class is in uproar"??? What fucking school is this? Liberty University? Any class I've ever been in would be telling this dumb fuck to shut up and listen to the professor.
But, just to point out the obvious... neither cold nor heat "exists". They are relative terms used to describe our perception of molecular vibrations. Ditto (almost) for light and dark. And as for the fucking brain statement? I just can't be bothered. Why do so many fucking idiots share this planet with me? |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Vortexfugue | Jan 20, 7:48am | | I can't be bothered to read such long posts, thanks for exposing the crap for what it is. |
|
| 
|  mhdk | Jan 20, 7:54am | These are the faults:
1. The argument that detecting the "absence of something" can indicate the existence of something.
The idea here is that death, darkness and cold all exist. The implication is that God is included in this category. Thus we have the following:
1. There is a category of empirically demonstrable things that includes Mount Everest, cups, trees etc.
2. There is a category of things that are understood in people's minds, that includes Homer Simpson, darkness, death, cold and God
3. These first two categories have single sets of unique characteristics.
4. There is a category of things that exist that includes things from category in 1 OR category 2
5. The category of existence does not have a single set of unique characteristics, it has two.
Or if you are going to analyse the same facts and remain consistent:
1. There is a category of empirically demonstrable things that includes Mount Everest, cups, trees etc.
2. There is a category of things that are understood in people's minds, that includes Homer Simpson, darkness, death, cold and God
3. These first two categories have single sets of unique characteristics.
4. The first is a category of things that exist
5. The second is a category of things that are understood in people's minds.
6. The category of existence does have a single set of unique characteristics
This means of course that darkness, death, cold and God are just things that people understand in their minds, not things that exist.
A summary of the argument can be found here: mhdk.ukfsn.org [mhdk.ukfsn.org]
2. The idea that we can't know brains exists or evolution happens without seeing it
This is a misrepresentation of scientific process. Firstly, it should be obvious that there is nobody that has seen an atom, electron or neutron and yet science still can prove their existence by experiments that demonstrate unique properties of these particles that we can witness with our senses.
Likewise with brains. We know they are there from cutting people open in the past. Unless you are going to posit that "nothing is certain" (as the "student" does) but that is problematic too
3. Nothing is certain
Gah. This is true, but it cuts both ways. Either nothing is certain and it is impossible for us to use our limited judgment... or it is possible to use our limited judgement and we might as well get on with using it. Thus, even though it is possible that the monitor you are using to read this could be a Terminator 2 robot polymorphed as a monitor and thus it is not absolutely certain to know if it is a robot or a monitor, you have never seen a robot in the process of polymorphing so therefore there is no reason to believe those robots exist.
See? Nothing is certain but reason prevails.
4. The necessity of faith
Faith is not necessary. Consistency is necessary, however. See above. See the website. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Vortexfugue | Jan 20, 8:16am | | I don't know where that university dredged up that professor, but I'm thinking he really didn't have a brain... lol. |
|
|
| | mhdk | Jan 20, 8:44am | | lol. Poor professor, he didn't expect to be seiged by nonsense. He was dumbfounded. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Vortexfugue | Jan 20, 8:46am | | Yeah, he's got to hate when that happens. When a student can say, "but hey professor, we can't know anything, therefore whatever shit I dream up is true and all the evidence I need is faith" and completely derail an actual lecture. |
|
|
| | habibcs | Jan 21, 8:54am | well there are quite many errors in post and it is old as well.
But the reason only was to give an type of element over here.
Plus with religion the biggest part is FAITH believe it or not :P |
|
| | | 438731 | Jan 21, 8:58am | | Yes, religion does a very good job of convincing people that believing things without evidence is a good thing. (It's NOT by the way) |
|
|
|
| |
| |
Philosophy of Religion → Discussion