How would you rate the student's argumentin the following story?

Sufficient reason to beleif in God.








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 %26amp; God is FAITH. That


is all that keeps things moving %26amp; alive

How would you rate the student's argumentin the following story?
The student's argument is nonsense, of course. You'd have to be pretty naive to think there was any serious content here. It might be suitable for entertaining children who you want to teach to be narrow-minded, though.





For example:





"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?"





Since we have observed the process of evolution at work, this part is simply a lie.





The stuff about cold and darkness is simply wordplay - what was once called "sophistry". It's sometimes clever, usually not, and never tells you anything about how the world works.





"So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir"





Another lie.
Reply:BAMMMMMMMM !!!





Outstanding . . .Thank you for clearing up things for the weak of heart !!!
Reply:It may seem off-the-scope of reasoning? But I don't need anything to know that there is a God. Just look in the Eyes of My Children. I'm not worthy to have something this special. But Someone, saw it differently. I thank you for that Piece. God Bless all.
Reply:interesting brings up a lot more questions than answers. I LIKE IT....
Reply:lots of reasons to belief in god, lots of reasons to not.





science is used for proving the evolutionary process, not faith.


science proves the other examples as well ... including the professor's brain, which literally exists in place we can all touch ... so much for established rules point.





a leap of faith in something that cannot be proven requires a leap from logic. one of the reasons it so safe to believe in god is that god can be trusted ... there is no way to prove god "right" ... or "wrong" as there is no way to prove god (period).





but your story is nice. religion is part of our cultural. part of the mythology of mankind. we used religion (the 'cleaned-up' version of superstition) to explain the mysteries of life before we had science.





having said that, science is not god either. although sometimes chemistry can sure make it seem that way!





thanks for sharing the story.
Reply:I've read something similar to this before.





It's really kind of a fluff argument, as far as evolution goes. The evolutionist community believes that they DO have evidence, and they HAVE seen evolution. It's entirely possible that there has been some evolution. I don't discount it. We just don't know.





And I'm a Christian, by the way.
Reply:The major flaw here is that evolution is supported by such a vast amount of evidence that 'faith' (unjustified belief) is not involved.
Reply:Cute, makes a good point but somewhat unrealistic for a science professor to allow that in a classroom.


As for Icarus62 statement that evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence. I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. As for Beavers remark that we see evolution in bacteria and disease all the time, not the kind of evolution that would be required for Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory of evolution calls for beneficial mutations with a gain in genetic knowledge. Diseases that change including becoming resistant to antibiotics are a mutated strains that have lost genetic information. Wrong direction.
Reply:I Like it and so does my husband
Reply:Point well made.
Reply:That is excellent, a bit long but tops
Reply:I like it.
Reply:That kid should write speeches for bush he avoids the issue and insults the man by using a pointless metaphor while thinking evolution says we evolved from monkeys lol. And you can totally tell this was written by a Christian because when he asked have you seen evolution. The professor would of said yes since you can see it in disease and bacteria all the time.
Reply:In real life, I don't think the student would have gotten so far in his argument. I'm fairly certain that a science professor would be aware that cold is a lack of heat and that darkness is a lack of light. It's absolutely possible to measure the temperature of the room, and the amount of light in it.





I can't begin to understand how evolution got into this particular discussion, but what is the process of breeding animals for one purpose or another if not a micro-evolutionary process? Saying that you can't believe it because you can't observe the whole process is like saying you don't believe in the concept of time because you can only observe seconds, minutes, hours, or years.
Reply:It is a defect in language that words suggest permanent realities and people do not see through this description. But mere words cannot create reality. Thus people speak of a final goal and believe it is real; but it is a form of words and the goal as such with out substance. The intention of the research is to persuade the reader, which he fails miserably at pulling off with half-a--s conjecture. These are the upcoming graduates of tomorrow?
Reply:I applaud you.
Reply:I'm not sure this is a question, but if I were to try and answer it, I'd say that at the 'beginning' there was 'nothing'.


OBLIVION infact is what there WAS.





Total 'negative' energy.


No light, no sound, no smell, no noise etc, etc.


Just a 'negative' electrical charge, but in the very centre of all this negativity there was a solitary 'positive' charge that all the 'negative' charges would 'rub' against to multiply.





This 'positive' charge was 'imagination'. It could think, feel, imagine colours and structural forms that never ever existed 'anywhere'. Only in the 'imagination' of this ONE solitary 'positive' electrical charge.





Then.... The amazing happened. 'positive' imagined MUSIC.


It started to 'vibrate' to it's sound. As it vibrated, it started to multiply itself. Soon there were billions of 'positive' electrical charges of 'imagination'.





RAW energy that could feel, see, hear and smell the cosmos all around itself. Through 'vibration' it found it could 'manifest' physical matter, and so it did.





This RAW 'positive' energy started to create the physical world it had imagined for billions of our years. It painted it all with colour that was manifested purely with 'vibrations'. MUSIC.





This RAW 'positive' energy called 'imagination' later became known as GOD.





More of the same at my 'source' below.





Pete.
Reply:Only goes to show that bulls hit baffles brains! That kid is a 100% candidate for George Bush's stand in!