An Interesting Story

[Makο]

I got this today in an email. I found it to be pretty nice.


[spoiler=Long enough to be spoiler'd. Contains Christianity related things]


"Let me explain the problem science has with religion."

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do..'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

'Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it 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? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains... 'You argue that there is life and then there's 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?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'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 now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. '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 the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? 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, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.


PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921...

[/spoiler]


Very interesting indeed.


Anyway, discuss. Or not. I just thought I'd share this story.


I might as well not even Inb4ycmreligiondebatebs.

[Grunt Issun]

Interesting enough. [/istryingtoavoidreligiousdebates]

[Agro]

Einstein did not prove to the professor that there was a god, only that we cannot prove that he does not exist.

And stop posting things you receive in e-mails, it's extremely unbecoming.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

I have seen other peoples brain yet not my own but by seeing another persons brain I can calculatively say I have one... Cold does not identify what can be considered as below that marginalized temperature and cold is based solely on an individuals opinion of what it is... To many cold is a cool feeling maintaining from an absence of heat or less of heat and while heat may still exist, to some the less heat there is the more cold takes its place to balance it out making it "colder" however the definition and proof of Cold is based solely on the individuals opinion...

Also again darkness is based solely on ones definition... To many darkness results from the absence of light in which the eyes widen and adjust to to an oncoming black atmosphere resulting from the absence of life... Yet again this is also man's opinion...
Einstein tride to fight hypocrisy with more hypocrisy... While he fought back the professors hypocrisy on the fact he could not respond to the limits science behold, the only arguments he could present were not facts but opinions based solely on his definition on the ideas of cold, darkness, and evil...

[Makο]

[quote name='AggroDrago' timestamp='1316833845' post='5536001']
And stop posting things you receive in e-mails, it's extremely unbecoming.
[/quote]
How so?


If you think this was a message sent STRAIGHT to me, heck no. This is just one of those "If you [Insert conditions here], send this to to at least one person you know." I just left that part out.


I didn't even recognize the sender.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='AggroDrago' timestamp='1316833845' post='5536001']
Einstein did not prove to the professor that there was a god, only that we cannot prove that he does not exist.

And stop posting things you receive in e-mails, it's extremely unbecoming.
[/quote]
Why should he? He does not have to bow down to your idea of what is and what isn't becoming... If you do not like these sorts of things then stop posting and ignore the topic because unless you were interested in it, you would not be here in the first place would you?

[Agro]

[quote name='Mako109' timestamp='1316835861' post='5536068']
How so?


If you think this was a message sent STRAIGHT to me, heck no. This is just one of those "If you [Insert conditions here], send this to to at least one person you know." I just left that part out.


I didn't even recognize the sender.
[/quote]
That's the exact kind of message you shouldn't send. Chain mail is nothing but hate towards one group or another.

@Anthony: he wasn't trying to prove god existed, he was just trying to prove that you couldn't DISprove it.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='AggroDrago' timestamp='1316836067' post='5536076']
That's the exact kind of message you shouldn't send. Chain mail is nothing but hate towards one group or another.

@Anthony: he wasn't trying to prove god existed, he was just trying to prove that you couldn't DISprove it.
[/quote]
Towards your first argument all I saw was a structured debate conversation on the logic of defying God through the senses...
Towards your second sentence I don't ever remember saying he was trying to prove God exist and nor have I implied it... Or at least I hope not...

[Agro]

[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1316836251' post='5536083']
Towards your first argument all I saw was a structured debate conversation on the logic of defying God through the senses...
Towards your second sentence I don't ever remember saying he was trying to prove God exist and nor have I implied it... Or at least I hope not...
[/quote]
He was fighting the professor's argument that 'proved' god existed based off of the fact that he couldn't prove that he did not exist. What you were saying was about hypocrisy and made it seem as if einstein's argument was wrong. But his argument was besides the point.

And it was a structural debate which ended in a conclusion; within a debate that does not have a conclusion. But enough of this. This is still a religious argument, which has no business being argued.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='AggroDrago' timestamp='1316836693' post='5536093']
He was fighting the professor's argument that 'proved' god existed based off of the fact that he couldn't prove that he did not exist. What you were saying was about hypocrisy and made it seem as if einstein's argument was wrong. But his argument was besides the point.

And it was a structural debate which ended in a conclusion; within a debate that does not have a conclusion. But enough of this. This is still a religious argument, which has no business being argued.
[/quote]
Why does it have no business of being argued? Theoretically Einsteins argument was wrong... Fighting hypocrisy with more hypocrisy only results in more hypocrisy... His argument was the basis of the entire topic and it is definately not beside the point... And if it results in no conclusion, should it not be debated to find a reasonable solution?

[Dark]

[i]'No sir, there isn't.'[/i]

Cold is the absence of heat. Like, seriously, the dude even said it to the professor. You can't claim that something doesn't exist when it clearly describes a value that counteracts a known value. Scientifically, sure, "cold" doesn't exist. You can add or subtract heat as a value, but cold is more of a concept. It's subjective whether something is cold (and also whether something is hot), but the heat or lack thereof in an object is measureable.

[i]'You're wrong again, sir.[/i]

Darkness is the absence of light. Like, seriously, the dude even said it to the professor. Light is measured in candelas, I believe, and as with heat, you can measure luminous intensity, you can add to it and subtract from it... and yet darkness and light are both subjective. Whether my room is dark or lit up is a subjective feeling, whereas measuring the light content of my room is a tangible value.

[i]You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.[/i]

Nowhere in the professor's argument did he try to view God as something finite. The professor took passages from the Bible and applied them - in essence, he pointed out contradictions in Christianity. God is apparently all-loving, but kids in Africa still starve and all us non-Christians still go to hell. The arguments of the student are irrelevant at best because they don't even attack what the professor is actually saying.

[i]'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'[/i]

Micro-evolution is a process that can be observed and is proven to exist, macro-evolution is a scientific theory (please understand what a scientific [i]theory[/i] is before you make ignorant comments) which already has a sufficient amount of proof behind it. The existence of a god does not have such an extensive amount of supporting material. Ergo, believing in evolution, even though it isn't certain, is a lot less illogical than believing in a god.

[i]Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?[/i]

A scientist bases his beliefs on empirical evidence and experimental testing; a preacher bases his beliefs on fictional books and leaps of faith.

[i]'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?'[/i]

There are other ways to prove the existence of his brain outside of physically seeing it. In fact, if you cut open his head you'd see his brain. Or if he took an MRI you'd get an image of his brain. The student is making ignorant and irrelevant arguments, mainly because he fails to realize that brains clearly do exist, the professor clearly has one, and you can prove this to be true without even seeing it. It's called neuroscience - and even if you discount that, brain scans do exist and provide impeccable evidence for the existence of a brain.

Also, by the same logic, the student has no brain because no one has ever seen his brain. :S

[i]It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.[/i]

Heat and light are measurable values, cold and darkness are subjective. The student is essentially saying that God is a measurable value and evil is just what happens when God isn't there, that subjective feeling. But then the student is attacking the professor for claiming that God is a measurable entity, something the professor never did in the first place.

I don't care if the student was Albert Einstein or some hobo in New York, his arguments were poorly constructed.

[This Account is Unplayable]

Since religion's omnipresent in this world anyway, there's no problem with making any points on it.

While I didn't read all of it, I read just over about two thirds of it when I basically realised what it was about.

All this is saying is that you can't disprove God, which isn't the point of atheism at all. Atheism is based on the lack of proof of "God", which leads to disbelief. As one of the examples were, "cold" doesn't exist, but we still believe it does. "Cold" is purely a term used for absence of heat, using it as an example as something that actually exists (which it doesn't) is utterly stupid.

But yeh, I'm basically repeating what Dark said, so you can just refer to his post for the rest of my opinion on this.

[Apostle of Calamity]

[quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1316835646' post='5536058']
I have seen other peoples brain yet not my own but by seeing another persons brain I can calculatively say I have one... Cold does not identify what can be considered as below that marginalized temperature and cold is based solely on an individuals opinion of what it is... To many cold is a cool feeling maintaining from an absence of heat or less of heat and while heat may still exist, to some the less heat there is the more cold takes its place to balance it out making it "colder" however the definition and proof of Cold is based solely on the individuals opinion...

Also again darkness is based solely on ones definition... To many darkness results from the absence of light in which the eyes widen and adjust to to an oncoming black atmosphere resulting from the absence of life... Yet again this is also man's opinion...
Einstein tride to fight hypocrisy with more hypocrisy... While he fought back the professors hypocrisy on the fact he could not respond to the limits science behold, the only arguments he could present were not facts but opinions based solely on his definition on the ideas of cold, darkness, and evil...
[/quote]
This is pretty much my argument as well. Even for Einstein this is a pretty bad argument.

[GraveHorizon]

That was a funny story.

[Chaos Dralcax]

A few problems with that: Let's take a look at another gradual change, the flowing of glass, for example*
Can we observe it? No, it's too slow. Does it exist? Yes. So, Einstein's argument against evolution is invalidated. To be unobservable is not enough to invalidate an existence, it must be logically proven to be nonexistant. We can prove evolution by looking at fossils and their modern counterparts, and disprove God by proving the numerous contradictions to religion. Had their opinions been switched, Einstein would have won anyways, because it was not reasoning that won the debate, it was the professor's ignorance. Also, the recent discovery of a faster-than-light neutrino shattered Einstein's credibility.
*Glass is not actually solid, but a state between solid and liquid, and actually flows over millions of years.

[GraveHorizon]

[quote name='Makuta Dralcax' timestamp='1316985610' post='5540245']
A few problems with that: Let's take a look at another gradual change, the flowing of glass, for example*
Can we observe it? No, it's too slow. Does it exist? Yes. So, Einstein's argument against evolution is invalidated. To be unobservable is not enough to invalidate an existence, it must be logically proven to be nonexistant. We can prove evolution by looking at fossils and their modern counterparts, and disprove God by proving the numerous contradictions to religion. Had their opinions been switched, Einstein would have won anyways, because it was not reasoning that won the debate, it was the professor's ignorance. Also, the recent discovery of a faster-than-light neutrino shattered Einstein's credibility.
*Glass is not actually solid, but a state between solid and liquid, and actually flows over millions of years.
[/quote]
It sounds to me like you're living in a [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM1pHYiIOT0"]deluded fantasy world of ignorance.[/url] Checkmate, atheist!

[Dad]

You guys are seriously getting hard-ons trying to decide who's right and who's wrong. But what does it matter? In the end it's just another "HAHA I TOLD YOU SO" story.Somebody needs to nuke the world so we can all find out at the same time, does God exist.

[Dark]

[quote name='Ghost Origins' timestamp='1316989746' post='5540376']
You guys are seriously getting hard-ons trying to decide who's right and who's wrong. But what does it matter? In the end it's just another "HAHA I TOLD YOU SO" story.Somebody needs to nuke the world so we can all find out at the same time, does God exist.
[/quote]

I'd rather believe that a god doesn't exist and preserve the world than to senselessly nuke it and find out once and for all.

[i]professor's ignorance[/i]

...the professor isn't ignorant, he just, for whatever reason, refuses to argue his position in a logical manner.

Also:

[i]faster-than-light neutrino shattered Einstein's credibility.[/i]

That comment has no relevancy - regardless of whether Einstein's theories are entirely truthful or not, it follows suit that he was an intellectual and revolutionary physicist.

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

[quote name='GraveHorizon' timestamp='1316986380' post='5540264']
It sounds to me like you're living in a [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM1pHYiIOT0"]deluded fantasy world of ignorance.[/url] Checkmate, atheist!
[/quote]
I couldn't get past the first 10 seconds.

[Christian Exodia]

I don't want to feel like a troll in a Religious thing... but I lol'ed when he said, "Have you felt your Jesus?"

I got confused after "So your good!" And didn't recover until where I lol'ed.

[Lt. Colonel Remo]

[quote name='Christian Exodia' timestamp='1316996870' post='5540725']
I don't want to feel like a troll in a Religious thing... but I lol'ed when he said, "Have you felt your Jesus?"

I got confused after "So your good!" And didn't recover until where I lol'ed.
[/quote]
Also, have you tasted your Jesus

dafuq kinda response was he expecting aside from no?

[Tentacruel]

Regardless of the point this is trying to make, I regard this story with suspicion.

[GraveHorizon]

[quote name='Miror B.' timestamp='1316994631' post='5540612']
I couldn't get past the first 10 seconds.
[/quote]
His satire is funny.