A Professor vs a Student, via Facebook.

I recently spotted a photo on Facebook that was accompanied by what appears to be a transcript of a conversation between a Student, and a Professor. In it, the Student and Professor debate the existence of God. I thought I would share this important debate with you. My thoughts are in read, for your viewing pleasure.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ? 

Student : Yes, sir.  

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ? 

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? 

Professor: Yes. 

Student : And is there such a thing as cold? 

Professor: Yes. 

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.
[“Cold” is a relative concept, like so many other concepts that we have (bald, tall, short, skinny, fat, long, wide, etc), meaning that it’s use and definition are relative to something else. In this case, when we speak of “cold,” we are referring to a level of heat that is relative to what we normally experience in our normal, everyday lives; we’re also referring to the sensation that is “cold,” which is also relative to individual experience. Think about how someone from Hawaii might find 50 degree Fahrenheit weather to be cold, but someone from Minnesota just after winter has passed might find 50 degree weather pleasantly warm. “Cold” then, is the term we use to describe a certain level of energy, not just its absence, as well as a particular sensation.] 

(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?
[Since “darkness” is also a relative concept, referring to the amount of light present in a particular area as compared to a level of light that lets us see normally, “darkness” does, in fact, exist as a relative concept. And when my room is dark at night, I can actually make it darker, simply by taking steps to block the various sources of light that allow me to see, however slightly.] 

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. [As were you, Student, when you called God “good.”] You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. [Whether or not God is a finite thing doesn’t matter, so much as whether the effects of an existing God can be measured, and determined to most likely be caused by God, and not some completely natural force. So far, no such effects have been identified.] Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. [And once upon a time, science couldn’t explain gravity, sound, where babies come from, or why some people have blue eyes instead of brown. Now it can. The only appropriate response to a lack of understanding is “I don’t know” or “I’m not able to explain that.” Saying “I don’t know, therefore the answer is God” is intellectually dishonest at the very least.] 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. [“Death” is certainly the absence of life, but it's a term that is used to refer to the absence of life where life previously existed. We do not call rocks “dead,” because they were never alive. In other words, it’s one of those relative terms again.] 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. [Wrong. Evolution has been observed at work, both in the lab and out of it. Scientists are, in fact, able to demonstrate very conclusively that evolution is an on-going endeavor. Check that link for a few examples, or just google "observed evolution."] 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?
[Evidence. To be fair, the Professor sort of set himself up for this, by not being clear that science relies on evidence, sometimes indirect evidence, and not just the five senses. For example, we can say that every time a human skull has ever been opened up for examination, there’s been a brain in there. We can also say that every time we’ve used advanced technology to peer inside a human body, there’s been a brain in there. The Professor, presumably, is human, and therefore we can say, with a very, very, very high degree of probability, that he has a brain. Other things that we use indirect evidence to be aware of include radio waves, microwave energy, odorless and tasteless poisons, and the love of a parent for their child.] 

(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. [It’s not faith, it’s confidence based on a high degree of evidence. And the disbelief in God is based on a severe lack of evidence. The disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God is based on the evidence that there is no all-powerful, all-good entity interfering in the world in any way that an all-powerful, all-good entity would be expected to: preventing cancer, natural disasters, random birth defects, and all other forms of suffering that humans may be unable to prevent, but an all-powerful being could do something about. If an all-powerful being exists, it is clearly NOT an all-good being.] 

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. 

[Faith tells us nothing, it demonstrates nothing, and is never a good reason to believe. It does not keep “things alive and moving,” and if faith is the only link between man and God, then there is no link between man and God.] 

P.S.
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. [Citation seriously needed. Maybe it really was Einstein, or maybe this entire conversation was made up. Regardless, the Student is wrong, and the Professor didn’t do a very good job of calling him out on it. For example, the Student never did address the problem of evil that the Professor brought up.]

So, what do y'all think?