This pops up from time to time, how would you argue?
Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
You've probably seen this "conversation" before, christians feel good about posting it and it surfaces now and then.
So what are your arguments (i.e. how would you rip this apart)?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: 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 was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD 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 GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: 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.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : 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.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
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 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?
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 & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
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.
Faith is belief without evidence of any sort (unless you want to count the bible as "evidence"). If I Trust that something is true, that trust is based in evidence. The professor's brain AND the student's are evinced out of a considerable chain of evidence expressed in a consistent correlation between the existence of brains in Homo sapiens and the multiple physical and intellectual capacities of Homo sapiens. If absolutely necessary, the existence of each of their brains can be verified, using means as crude as a 10-blade or as sophisticated as a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. In the case of the professor, his expertise and qualifications can be verified by diplomas and records, possibly a doctoral thesis and other publications which testify to his right to stand in that classroom and teach.
I should also mention: Einstein, at least as an adult, was a DEIST. There are multiple quotes from him in which he utterly rejects the concept of a personal god. If Einstein had a god, it was the god of Spinoza, a "god" of order, of the laws of physics and of nature.
I should further mention that snopes.com has looked into the little vignette you posted and pronounced it FALSE.
I agree Brandi. Religious ideas began long before the Bible existed and was in response to misunderstood disasters in the natural world like storms, earthquakes, etc. These ideas were expanded upon (and exaggerated around campfire stories) to result in the hodge podge of a Bible we have today.
Loren, thank you for the research and debunking. The style seemed artificial to me, and Einstein identiifying himself as christian seemed odd.
Also, Einstein and religion here.
This post looks like one of those chain-letter emails and is a bit too close to theistic for my tastes.
The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
Hmmm ... "The link between man and god is faith." So ... the relationship between a man who demonstrably exists and an invented concept which has no verifiable existence is a practice of belief without substantiation.
I suppose it follows ... though it's entirely useless.
First, it is obvious from the style of the writing that the first and last halves were written by different authors. Einstein was also basically an Atheist. His "god" could be better understood as the foundational principles from which existence arose. Similar to the "ground of being" argument.
Now on to the specifics.
You can't have negative heat?
Scientists chill atoms to negative temperature.
No such thing as darkness?
Sure, whatever. It's a cognitive construct. A symbolic placeholder for "lack of light".
Have we ever seen evolution?
Yes, we have. Many times.
We can use various means by which we can determine whether or not something exists which are beyond our senses. No one has ever "seen" an atom either, but we can use specialized equipment which allows us to overcome that limitation. We can also see the evidence for evolution, and yet the evidence for the existence of god(s) doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
The professor's brain may not have been directly experienced by anyone in the class, but evidence for his brain has. We can conclude, that since a brain is necessary for even rudimentary motor and cognitive function, that he does indeed have one. That is, the evidence we observe points to the fact that the professor has a brain. The evidence, as posited earlier by the professor, points to the Christian god being negligent, evil, powerless, or non-existent.
a video with Einstein in it
I'm not a scientist so I'd appreciate some help in thinking this through.
The instructor demonstrated the student had no reason to believe in god other than faith. Correct me if I'm wrong but the student attempted to demonstrate that science (and the instructor, as a stand in), knew nothing because it didn't know everything. He also attempted to prove that science used nonsensical terms that it could not defend. He used the terms "cold" and "darkness" in the laymans definition in an attempt to prove that science has no idea what it is doing. Science knows very well that the opposite of heat is a lack of heat. It also knows the opposite of light is a lack of light. It is a laymans definition of the words "cold" and "darkness" that allows them to be used as an opposite. He has attempted to generate a controversy where none exists. Haven't we seen that a million times before?
That evolution cannot be seen on demand isn't evidence that faith is required to believe. If that were true, the entire field of chemistry would collapse. Sure, you can take two chemicals, mix them together and get something predictable, but only predictable in the empirical sense. It takes a web of understanding called science to know why it happens and predict other chemical reactions. Otherwise we'd be saying those reactions were caused to happen on an individual basis by god. Another field where this would apply would be biochemistry.
I'm somewhat irked by the use of "science" as the loyal opposition. Science is a method. The true opponent of religion, or faith, is logic and understanding. Any way of life that isn't based on "god did it" is actually a threat to religion.
Getting back to the OP, is the bulk of the argument what would be considered a false equivalence?
Here is the link to Snopes.