Friday, October 21, 2005

Is there really a GOD ? Read this to find out.

This is a hilarious account of the conversation that a professor of philosophy has with his students.

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

"You're a Believer, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"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 Book says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BOOK!" 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."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could. God doesn't."

[No answer]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Believer who died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God? good?

Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]


The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?"

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.

"Let's start again, young fella." "Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From...God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience.

"I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Believer. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?"

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness.

All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM?

TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Believer's face. In a still small voice he states: "God created
all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerised. "Tell me," he continues,

"How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all
time?"

The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?"

The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,

"Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in God, son?"

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

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses that you use to identify and observe the world around you.

Have you ever seen him?"

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

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your God?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

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

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Believer sits...Defeated.

Another Believer raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Believer in the vanguard!

Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Believer looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

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

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Believer continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, 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, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - 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. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"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 and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.

This will indeed be a good semester.

"Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Believer explains. "That for example 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 cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.

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, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbour who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as
immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of

morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice.

Is there such a thing as evil?" The Believer then pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming colour. He is so

angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Believer continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognise the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the
Believer replies.

"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!

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 makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his

student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of

evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical

discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" The professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir,

you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Believer remains standing until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,

may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Believer looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the

class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Believer points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "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.

The Believer shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here

has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Believer sits down... Because that is what a chair is for.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lol. Good laugh. Yet... I'm on the Professor's side.

Anonymous said...

yeah, the Believer's argument was full of holes. Evolution has been seen, you can see it very quickly in fruit flies, for example. And the professors brain argument? The empirical evidence that he has a brain is that he's alive, standing under his own power, and holding a conversation with you. So, you can hear, see, and feel (assuming he would punch you in the face for being such a dumbass) the presence of his brain. Although, I guess you could argue that there might be something else controling him...maybe he's a super advanced cyborg from the future

Luke Demi - said...

This was very good. However, I'd have to say that second anonymous guy is completely wrong. Evolution has never been seen or proven, and is not a law only a theory. A fruit fly may be able to change it's wing structure to ie. fly in less dense air, but NEVER has there been found a fossil that shows any type of evolution. Also, what the student said about the professors brain was just to prove that the critica he gave for something being alive was flawed. Good artical, I'm with the student.

Anonymous said...

Evolution is totally visible, there exists thousands of examples of fosil evidence.

We did not however, "descend from a monkey", that implies that we are better than monkeys, we descended from a proto-ape, the concestor of apes, monkeys and humans, further than that - we descended from a proto-fish, and before that, a proto algea.

This is science, cold hard fact. to deny it by saying it's a lie without providing contra evidence is stupidity in the extreme.

peace.

UberKuh said...

Evolution is a visible process, but, more to the point of the problem, God is responsible for absence of good and evil is still something very real to people, and something that God, in his perfect goodness, could and should have prevented. You really have to be pretty ignorant to think that this story puts the theist in a positive light.

If you did think so, then I would suggest trying to play the Devil's Advocate for once and demonstrate to yourself that God could not logically exist. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, then find one mistake in it somewhere and there you have it! Otherwise, look for logical flaws. They are easy enough to find.

If you so, and all your have left is blind faith, well, then you can choose to either be blissfully ignorant (and, without reason, you might as well believe in Zeus or Zoroaster) or agnostic and open to the possibility that what that 2,000 year old book tells you might be false.

Jonathan said...

Bullshit. This is creationist bullshit seeking to inflame the subject. Bullshit is evil and it is created by creationists.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the Professor. Why? Because it makes sense that "God" doesn't exist. Infact, if "God" did exist, why would he appeal to one group of peoples, and lead the out of a country, when he could've prevented that?

Also, if there was a "God" How so is it that we have religions that are older than monothesism itself? How do you explain the fact that monothesism developed only in the Middle East? If "God" existed, why did the bible not exist in such lands as ancient China? the Americas? Australia?

If "God" was real, why does he allow wars in his name between groups of people who believe in him, but have small differences? Explain the Crusades? Explain a Jihad? All in the name of God, but why would he allow it?

I dont believe in "God", or at least, if there was a God, he can't do anything but watch.

Silas148 said...

This is a website with 353 contradictions found throught the bible, in-accordence with Uberkuh's reply.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Silas148 said...

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
/contra/by_name.html

Anonymous said...

well, since believing in evolution is a theory, shouldn't believing in God or a higher being such as, also a theory? the student knew that the professor had a brain, but he's never used his senses to see,feel,touch, taste, or smell it; therefor making that something he "believes" in. There are many things in the bible Quran and other holy books that are considered coincidences or just amazing facts that are proven true but were not able to be proven true many years ago. IE. if you read the Quran the words in it are paired in numbers with other words... example: angels are mentioned 88 times, satan is mentioned 88 times. Life is mentioned 45, death is mentioned 45. water is mentioned 32 times, and land is mentioned 13 times. add those up and you get 45 total, 32/45 is 71.111% which is how much of the world is by water, land is 28.something% which is the amount of land on Earth. coincidence? possibly, but amazing as well. i don't remember the list, but i do have the link, email me for it samiralis@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

this is horribly retarded, i can't belive i wasted time to read this...

Anonymous said...

this is horribly retarded, i can't belive i wasted time to read this...

Anonymous said...

this is horribly retarded, i can't belive i wasted time to read this...

Anonymous said...

*sigh* I just can't help myself, I have to respond. First off, the second student gets right his first point - that cold is the absence of heat. But, strictly speaking, this is only the parlance used by physicists...a lower-temperature substance will import a "lack of heat" and I think you would agree that "lack of heat" exists. Second, the student could no more give the professor a "jar of lightness" than the professor could give him a "jar of darkness." A flashlight, you say? But ah...simply turning OFF the thing gives darkness as well. Third, the student says the professor is assuming God is finite, when, in fact, he does nothing of the sort. The professor starts with the premise that God has created everything to show that he must have created evil too. Sounds like omnipotence to me - but even if it isn't, it isn't an assumption of finiteness. Fourth, the student says the professor is assuming God is something we can measure. Unfortunately the student has confused scientific measurement with philosophy. The professor has used no measurements, but only a logical contradiction, one which extends infinitely as far as God, presumably, could go. The "you can't sense Him either" is thrown in more for fun. It's not the foundation. Fifth, the student incorrectly states what duality is. He states it as "life" and "death" - presumably the student is referring to life after death somehow, but even so, this does not necessarily imply duality. Duality means that there are physical and non-physical universes in which we live, rather than just the physical one we know. So this life vs. death analogy is rather pointless. Sixth, the student starts reasoning along the lines of "science hasn't gotten there yet, so it must be wrong." If he's worried that science can't explain a thought, does the student think that God or religion can? Besides, the point of science is that it does NOT explain things completely without a preponderance of verifiable evidence. Simply providing an explanation does not mean one is providing fact. Seventh, the student starts making analogies to abstract concepts and their (supposed) opposites. Morality vs. immorality, justice vs. injustice, and finally good vs. evil. Each analogy gets further away from a pure "thing/lack of thing" definition and closer to things that are subjective. I don't think "evil" is really the absence of "good" as there are plenty of choices one can make that don't seem evil, but aren't exactly "good" either...doesn't that betray the subjectivity of the terms, once we start hashing out exact definitions? Eighth, it's absolutely insane that a good philosophy professor wouldn't have jumped on the "God is working on us and our free will" stuff - this is not an issue a philosopher wouldn't know about. It's the bread and butter of philosophy! Practically the inspiration for the subject! And I have to say, clearly the professor would just answer...oh, and how do you know this free will exists, or that God's idea of a good project using our free will is good and not evil? I suppose the Bible tells you all the reasons we're supposed to do what is written in its pages? If God knows all, wouldn't he know immediately without having to run us through His big, cruel experiment? Ninth, the student is arguing that the absence of God's moral code is evidence of God...very tricky philosophy there...or perhaps just wrong. The absence of purple unicorns in the fabric of life is an observation of their existence, right... Tenth, clearly one observes the evidence of evolutionary processes, or reads about them from scientific journals. We have physical evidence of atomic particles. We learn to trust these publications because they are of repeatable experiments. Perhaps that is too difficult for the student to grasp, but he is in no better of a situation by taking a single publication from hundreds of years ago as the sole source of truth. Eleventh, it's presumptuous to ask if the professor accepts God's moral code, when clearly he would disagree about whose code it really is, and when accepting a moral code of behavior may or may not say anything about what someone believes. Twelfth, clearly, if science is the study of observable phenomena, that study has given us the ability to say that everyone has a brain because every human skull we've knocked open before the contents decayed has contained a brain. But somehow this is enough to immobilize a scientist during a debate about science? Ridiculous. I also have to say that "science" is not a "premise" that can be "flawed." "Science" is a way of studying physical phenomona. There are premises made by scientists, but "science" is a study or a method. The professor, if so lousy at parrying these rebukes, should consider a job change.

Anonymous said...

If darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, than evil is the absence of God. There is no god. Thanks for reaffirming many peoples ideas.

Anonymous said...

'Evil' only exists because of free will. People, under influence of Satan, who makes evil seem even more tantalising, make bad choices. As the second student implied, things can be very good, less good, a little good, or no good at all, referred to as 'evil'. Why do we have free will? Is it just a big, cruel experiment? No! God loves us and wants us to love him back. If we didn't have free will, we couldn't really love him, or experience any of the other emotions that God wants us to experience. Any arguments? Bring 'em on!

Anonymous said...

We know that everyone has a brain! This example was only used for the punch line!

Anonymous said...

If God had decided to allow no evil in the world, answer me this: how would one CHOOSE between good and evil. It's like choosing between the mouth on the front of your face and the one on the bottom of your foot! Saying that God shouldn't have created evil is completely missing the point. He wants you to choose between life and death. 'Choose life', He says. Also, believing in God is not so ridiculous as believing in, say, a universe that created ITSELF out of nothing!!!