student vs professor

[duhh_]

Heres a truly interesting debate I found between a college student and his professor about God. Whats your guys take on it?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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 fella. 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.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by duhh_

Heres a truly interesting debate I found between a college student and his professor about God. Whats your guys take on it?

That religion obviously has no place in Critical Thinking.

And neither does copy pastas.

[duhh_]

1) who says its a copy paste? ( i assume you ment "paste" instead of "pasta")

2) did you even read it?

[TK_Bakonfat69]

Damn if that student actually thought of that spot on, then I wanna give him a hand shake. I mean I don't believe in God, but that was an awesome argument.

[itmorr]

I didn't read through it all, but doesn't that mean that if I don't attend class, then the absence of me should not be counted as an absence because they can't prove that I wasn't in class through the faith of others or something?

[Afrobean]

...

First of all, it is definitely a copy paste.

Second of all, yes I read it, and I thought it was deplorable at best. To suggest that the teacher hasn't a brain because it hasn't been seen is simply put the worst argument for anything I've ever heard. There exists evidence in the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER to be examined, has a brain. It is known that without a brain, a person would be unnable to live. Because of this, it is safe to assume that every living person has a brain. Now, as for God? There is no real evidence for his existence. The only "evidence" one could scrape together would be a combination of a very old book obviously written by a man, not a god, and feelings. Totally different subjects.

And yeah, cold is the absence of heat, not a thing in and of itself, much like darkness is actually the absence of light. Just because the instructor had a brain fart in that instance doesn't mean anything.

Third of all, I would wager that the whole thing is fiction.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

The argument against evolution is retarded and ignorant. We have more than substantial evidence and fossils from every stage of evolution back to australopithecus afarensis.

The argument that the "same logic" suggests that the professor has no brain is ridiculously flawed because we know from actual knowledge of the human body that the brain exists in every human, and there is no hard evidence whatsoever of the existence of a God.

And yeah, cold is the absence of heat, not a thing in and of itself, much like darkness is actually the absence of light. Just because the instructor had a brain fart in that instance doesn't mean anything.

QFT. That was pretty much an attempt to make the argument sound stronger, by including something that is completely irrelevant and not even comparable at all. It can be only vaguely traced to the actual point, and only if you're stupidly biased.

I would wager that the whole thing is fiction.

Obviously.

[Kilgamayan]

Both arguments are flawed; the student's for reasons already stated, and the professor's for assuming that higher powers are limited by earthly concepts and understandings.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

Both arguments are flawed; the student's for reasons already stated, and the professor's for assuming that higher powers are limited by earthly concepts and understandings.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The professor's argument was intentionally made retarded and closedminded.

[Specforces]

A cherry cola read, entertaining, but there's nothing healthy there for me. It made me smile, but as it was already stated, both arguments are flawed. Rai, you're really spot on with your contention, but then again so is Kilga's point. You can't rule out the possibility of higher powers ever. The probability that they don't exist is very high, but the possibility is always there. You'll never know until you die I suppose.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons

The professor's argument was intentionally made retarded and closedminded.

I've noticed philosphy professors tend to be really good at that, since it's a great way to make a point.

My professor, for example, started with a reasonable moral base and used that base and a series of logical arguments to prove that women are useless if they're not pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. The best part was that no one in the class could figure out how to argue the point.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

Both arguments are flawed; the student's for reasons already stated, and the professor's for assuming that higher powers are limited by earthly concepts and understandings.

That's true, but as far as THIS WORLD (ie the real world-- things which are tangible) is concerned, any god might as well not exist since there is no way to sense it and there is no evidence for it which can't be postulated in another direction using logic.

[TK_Bakonfat69]

Dude I agree totally with what you said. I mean, it is so easy to tell that it was kind of one sided to the student in this thing because he gives so much evidence and makes the professor looks like a dumbass. The story itself (I guess it is a story) is good I think, the point it tries to convey is very one sided.

The professor was talking about tangible evidence whilst (yay I used the word whilst, I hope I used it right) the student was talking about intangible evidence.

Also, in case you guys didn't know, having these discussions will not change anyones mind. (or at least you won't know it because they will act like the still believe in their ides)

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Originally Posted by Specforces

A cherry cola read, entertaining, but there's nothing healthy there for me. It made me smile, but as it was already stated, both arguments are flawed. Rai, you're really spot on with your contention, but then again so is Kilga's point. You can't rule out the possibility of higher powers ever. The probability that they don't exist is very high, but the possibility is always there. You'll never know until you die I suppose.

I agree, and I never meant to say that there's no higher power. I simply disagree with the manmade assumptions about higher powers.

[JurseyRider734]

I hardly took it seriously to begin with because I read it on Myspace or something like two months ago. But I agree how both sides are flawed.

[Bahamut-X]

Man, I was like WHAT THE HELL when I read the statement about the professor's brain. Ridiculous comparison. After reading some replies I see how you could say both sides have flaws.

[Specforces]

Originally Posted by TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons

I agree, and I never meant to say that there's no higher power. I simply disagree with the manmade assumptions about higher powers.

Bingo, hail satan.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

To suggest that the teacher hasn't a brain because it hasn't been seen is simply put the worst argument for anything I've ever heard. There exists evidence in the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER to be examined, has a brain. It is known that without a brain, a person would be unnable to live. Because of this, it is safe to assume that every living person has a brain.

Ah ah aaaaaahhh... You're not thinking philosophically here. Sure, it's reasonable to assume, but assumptions aren't at all connected with proof in philosophy. Ever heard that it's impossible to prove something (besides mathematics)? Well, it is. Can you prove that the keyboard in front of you exists? Can you prove that your brain exists? In order to do these things you have to prove that everyone's not having a mass hallucination in all their senses simultaneously. But then you can call into question the existence of everyone else, and so the only thing you can really prove is your own existence, just like Descartes did, "Cogito ergo sum."

Scientifically, a convergence of evidence will prove scientifically that the teacher has a brain, but it won't be able to scratch the surface on whether or not he truly has a brain, in the philosophical sense.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Afrobean]

rofl

You just wanted to say something that makes me wrong, didn't you.

Philosophically, you can argue for all kinds of silly ****. That doesn't mean it's right, or even that anyone would realistically believe it.

And if they did believe it, they'd simply be labeled as delusional.

And yeah, there's no such thing as objective proof, but why ignore subjective proof? Who cares if everyone is mass hallucinating? As long as we're all hallucinating the same thing it really doesn't matter at all.

[Yanah_God]

There's no point in trying to convince others to stop believing in their religion. The time that they decide what they'll believe is way before the time they're going to start debating it.

The funny thing is that whenever someone argues one point or another, they always end up contradicting what THEY believe. Yes, you can say that faith in religion is faulty, but then you're also saying faith in physics and theories of how the universe work are faulty.

Always gives me a good laugh.