Chamblee54

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, you believe in G-d ? Student : Absolutely, sir. Professor : Is G-d good ? Student : Sure. Professor: Is G-d all powerful ? Student : Yes. Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to G-d to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But G-d didn’t. How is this G-d good then? Hmm? (Student was silent.) Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is G-d good? Student : Yes. Professor: Is satan good ? Student : No. Professor: Where does satan come from ? Student : From … G-d … Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student : Yes. Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And G-d did make everything. Correct? Student : Yes. Professor: So who created evil ? (Student did not answer.) Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they? Student : Yes, sir. Professor: So, who created them ? (Student had no answer.) Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen G-d? Student : No, sir. Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your G-d? Student : No , sir. Professor: Have you ever felt your G-d, tasted your G-d, smelt your G-d? Have you ever had any sensory perception of G-d for that matter? Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t. Professor: Yet you still believe in Him? Student : Yes. Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your G-d doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has. Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Professor: Yes. Student : And is there such a thing as cold? Professor: Yes. Student : No, sir. There isn’t. (The lecture theater became 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 was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.) Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Professor: 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 its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you? Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ? Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Professor: 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 G-d and a bad G-d. You are viewing the concept of G-d 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? Professor: 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 shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was 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 was in uproar.) Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? (The class broke 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 was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.) Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & G-d is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. P.S. I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you? Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH. By the way, that student was EINSTEIN. // This incident was posted on Facebook. If the student was Albert Einstein, then this discussion took place in German. The comments below were posted about this story. // I hope the class got a refund on their tuition for that day. // This is mindless propaganda, pure and simple. First of all, there’s no way that Einstein was the student in question. Secondly, not only has evolution been observed in the past, but it’s actually still happening right now. Third, the professor seems to switch from being a philosopher to a science midway. This is a clear signal that this is a compilation of two different stories. Fourth, most of the student’s arguments are just plane stupid. Cold does exist. Science defines cold as the absence of movement. To say that absence doesn’t exist is silly and makes it sound like you think that everything is constantly moving or that the “student” doesn’t understand the difference between the word “cold” and the physical process that we call cold, that slows down the movement of things. I could keep going but almost every sentence of this thing is just dead wrong. // That doesn’t sound like Einstein at all, lol. // Lol @ evolution hasn’t been observed. Try some penicillin next time you get a staph infection. // “It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.” wtf rofl . this is such a dumb copy pasta. also I don’t even like to let theists get into philosophical arguments about deities. I don’t have philosophical arguments about leprechauns or unicorns. The only arguments for actual proof of a deity just come from arguments of ignorance “i don’t know how something works, therefore G-d did it.” // Hmmm… I feel like the “heat/cold” argument is subjective in a way, hence the presentation by this “student”. I presume that the basis of the “evolution” argument was solely focused on events such as macro species (e.g. fish to frog, frog to lizard, etc.). I have seen some quotes accredited to Einstein which deal with G-d and support Einstein’s belief in some form of “G-d”. Whether this quote or these words (possibly paraphrased) are of Einstein is another matter (some citation might be nice). I’ve heard the argument “gravity is a theory” and I do feel that there is some degree of “faith” that we place into our scientific observations and conclusions on the world we perceive around us. I do see the idea of believing in a supreme being or even an interdimensional, omnipotent/-vox/-present/-scient being as believing in a theoretical conclusion, just the way I see holding to the conclusion of gravity as a theoretical conclusion. Does that justify some of the backwards ish that goes on in the name of religion (or “G-d”)? HECK NO. I do see the existence of a “G-d” and the idea of that G-d kickstarting a big bang or some other process as a possibility. As an observer and enthusiast of science, I encourage you to challenge or argue against that perspective if you feel inclined to do so. // having faith in gravity is different from having faith in a magical being. you have faith in gravity based on measurable evidence. having faith in a deity that “created” the big bang (whatever that means) is based solely on ignorance (not trying to be offensive but that’s the best word). We are all ignorant of a lot of things, but just because humanity can’t explain every single mystery in the observable universe doesn’t give any validation to the G-d argument. // the agnostic approach of “well i can’t prove it DOESNT exist” is a waste of time. there are an infinite amount of things that you can’t PROVE don’t exist, but the severe lack of evidence (none whatsoever) leads you to believe that they are false. // Christians who claim that macroevolution has never been observed are either completely ignorant or are intentionally trying to mislead others. No scientist has ever said that fish give birth to frogs or that a monkey ever gave birth to a human. Period. End of story. Macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same cthing and are composed of the exact same processes. Microevolution and speciation have both been observed in the modern era, thus evolution has been observed. That’s it. It’s over. As for the idea that “gravity is a theory”, this is just more ignorance of science. I challenge anyone that really believes that “gravity is a theory” to jump off the Empire State Building. If it’s just a “theory” it could be wrong…right? // I understand that there is measurable evidence for gravity; what I am saying is that it is possible that another explanation may be more valid for why that reaction occurs. Also, I am hecking out the dialogue on Gabrielle’s post. If this is indeed a misquote, then I find that to be a shame. :) Okay, let’s look at the Epicurus quote. I’ll cut to the chase; the last line is the one I agree with most, because it allows room for the existence of some “G-dlike” being or force, even if they (the being or force) lack the *agency* or means to expel all evil, which, at the very least, is a *possibility*. It does lack measurable evidence, yes. I hold that is is a possibility, which I feel deserves some consideration (science fantasy, ho!). // I’m taking this conversation in a different direction. Everyone is encouraged to address the previous subject or this one as they choose. I kind of have this idea of “G-d” as having a greater knowledge/power/ability than that of a human, only being held back by certain stipulations and “principles” (those self-defined and those imposed by other parties). As far as possibilities go, might this be an explanation to the questions presented by Epicurus? Maybe “G-d” as a title was convenient for some purposes (i.e., leading a (created) race of beings). Maybe a third party placed the title upon them. Maybe it was self-imposed even with the knowledge that it was, from another perspective(s), untrue. // Another explanation is always possible for everything. Why even bring that up. I mean, you think G-d created the universe but how do you know it wasn’t aliens? I mean, I’m not sayin’ it’s aliens,but…it’s aliens! I just want you to imagine having that conversation with someone. You’re talking about evidence and facts and their reply is, “yeah, but…aliens”. And as for the Epicurus thing, you’ve walked right into it, mayne. If G-d has limitations, then G-d isn’t all-powerful. And if G-d isn’t all-powerful and has claimed to be all-powerful (as the G-d in the Bible so obviously has) that means that G-d is a liar on top of not being omnipotent. So how exactly does that solve the Problem of Evil? And you begin this new conversation by saying that you don’t have any proof but you still think it’s a possibility? I mean, I’m not gonna say that aliens made you say that., but…it’s aliens. // Heehee. Hmmm. I sense there’s some sensitivity about this issue and I can understand the source of it in certain respects. I do like the idea of possibility, because I’m a science fantasy enthusiast. At the same time, I like the evidence basis of science, therefore, I welcome being challenged on my perspectives. I welcome you all to give me your feedback in the days to come on my ideas. ^^// This is propoganda, pure and simple. Notice the confrontational authority figure who attacks his student’s beliefs but is usurped by him. Also notice the completely fake attribution of the story to Einstein. And blatantly incorrect assertions like evolution being unobservable, a human brain being unobservable, that science doesn’t “understand” electricity and magnetism. I am not an atheist and my boyfriend is Catholic. Both of us detest this ignorant, manipulative articles that make science and faith look like they’re mortal enemies, or that rely entirely on the “G-d of the gaps”. // Pictures are from The Library of Congress.