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 its 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.) 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 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. And the student sits down.
To whomsoever it may concern,
This is a reply to the above dialogue between a Student and a Professor, which implicitly sates that it “proves” the existence of god. I was deeply hurt that a dialogue that has no logic in it has been going around the internet for so long a time.
The excerpts from the dialogue are in blue and the reply’s are in black.
Student: ... 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.
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.
There is something called Cold. Cold is the name given to low temperatures or low energy (heat energy) levels, which is vastly different from " absence of heat ". Absolute temperature (0 K –273.15 °C/ –459.67 °F) cannot be achieved, as it requires a perfect system without any imperfections. A system without any imperfections is not found in nature and neither can it be created except in theory. We do measure cold. Low temperature is cold.
Student: Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
Wrong. Cold is not absence of heat, but the name given to low energy (heat energy) levels as stated in my previous response.
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 were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Accepted, darkness is the absence of light as perceived by humans. You see darkness is a human term. Many animals use sound, infra-red, vibrations, chemical signature for navigation and other purposes. So what would be darkness to a human may not be so for some other animal. Also, what’s the point the student is trying to get at here? Is it that the professor is wrong? Well it in no way affects the authenticity of the professor’s statements about god. Why? The reason is the first sentence of the discussion. “An atheist professor of philosophy…..”, as you can very well see the professor is qualified on the subject of philosophy and it nowhere mentions his qualifications in the field of physics. It would therefore not be incorrect to make a premise that the professor’s knowledge in physics is that of a layman as the fields of philosophy and physics differ from each other widely. The Student has made a logically incorrect premise that an expertise in one subject means an expertise in other subjects too.
Student: You argue there is life and then there is death, 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.
First of all The Professor nowhere makes a statement that death is the opposite of life. Again check the Student’s logic: There is absence of life on the Moon, so according to the Student, there is Death on the Moon. Wow, the Student is an absolute genius!!! I am expecting a thesis on the existence of death on the Moon. What crap?
(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.)
Evolution is a slow, continuous, cumulative process. It will take a hundred years if not a thousand years to perceive a change. The life period of an average human being is only 60 years. So isn't it logically incorrect of the Student to ask the Professor, if he has observed the process of evolution at work.
And as for evidence of evolution, one word: Fossils. Oh also the genes of animals belonging to different species are quite similar to each other.
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.
The dialogue can be used to “prove” the existence of, among many others, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Celestial Teapot. In the dialogue, just replace the instances of the word God with any of the three above and voila!
Awaiting a reply,
An Atheist
