A discussion to remember

I read this on a facebook status a few minutes ago, and the sheer brilliance of the dialogue below deserves to be shared with all 7 billion + people on this planet. If you agree with it, share it, if you don’t… take a moment to process what is being said.

Professor : You are religious, 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 theatre 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, were 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.

Advertisements

3 comments on “A discussion to remember

  1. feras1994 says:

    absolutely brilliant

  2. feras1994 says:

    absolutely brilliant!

  3. leftbrigade says:

    1) Heat and cold are just linguistical conveniences. Any physicist (or indeed, any HS student pf physics) knows that “cold” does not exist in scientific language. It simply means that the level of internal energy some matter possesses is comparatively low. At absolute zero (0 kelvin) matter has no internal energy, i.e. no heat – the absence of heat still doesn’t make it “cold” in any sense other than the practical “cold to the touch”, which, of course, isn’t a scientific term, it’s just a word we can use so we can say “it’s cold outside” rather than “the air outside has a deviating average level of internal energy today”. It’s a linguistical trap, and no real professor would fall in it.

    2) Darkness, of course, is to light what cold is to heat – it is not a thing, just the absence of the other. It’s a convenient word for describing a situation in which insufficient photons are hitting the light sensors of our retinas. Think of it this way: An elephant is a physical thing. There is not an elephant in my room at the moment. That doesn’t make the air where the hypothetical elephant could have existed a special kind of not-elephant-space. Similarly, the absence of light does not produce a not-light-space, it’s just space without any light in it: darkness is just a practical way of describing the fact that there is too little light for us to see anything.

    3) Evolution IS observed, every day, on every level – it’s what makes discoveries of antiobiotic-resistant bacteria so worrying in microbiology, and it’s what allows us to distinguish species from one another on a macrobiological level (evolution is still ongoing and observable in nature today, some plants can even make the jump to a new, different species in a single generation). If the professor really couldn’t answer this by simply refuting it with obvious facts pertaining to a subject he TEACHES, he definitely shouldn’t have been a professor in the first place!

    4) As for the professor’s brain, well – this is, dare I say it, kind of a no-brainer. Science is based on observable, repeatable facts. When a disprovable hypothesis has been created, experiments carried out and observed, and a theory established and peer-reviewed, we’d still call it a theory, but it would be so well-founded at some point that the event of someone disproving it would be considered highly unlikely. We don’t need to carry out experiments on every single particle of an object to confirm that it is indeed affected by gravity rather than some other force when it is laying on a table, we can assume that gravity is indeed what keeps it from falling into the sky. Similarly, no human being has ever been shown to function at a conscious level without a brain. Thus, because the professor is walking, talking, reasoning and arguing, the chances of him having a brain are so astronomically high that claiming belief in the existence of his brain as a matter of faith is completely ludicrous. If you claim that the scientific method demands us to have examined not just separate experiments but to actually observe everything, all the time, in order to know that the laws of physics still apply, you’ve completely misunderstood the concept.

    I don’t mind religion at all, but I despise poor arguments.

    Thanks for your time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s