The link between man & 'God' is FAITH. That's all that keeps things moving & alive.

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


C4

Guest
Um. This is a true story, heard about it lots of times. Should be worthy of discussion here.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and:

Prof: So, you believe in God?

Student:
Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: 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?

.....

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is 'God' good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God.. .

Prof: That's right.
Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student:
Yes.

Prof:
Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof:
So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)

Prof:
Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student:
Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)

Prof: 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.

Prof:
Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student:
No, sir.

Prof:
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.

Prof:
Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: 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.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof:
Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof:
Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

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 .

Student:
What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof:
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 it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness doesn't exist. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: 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?

Prof: 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?

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?

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

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?

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir.

The link between man & 'God' is FAITH . That's all that keeps things moving & alive.
 

★Chuck Zombie★

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
St. Bernard/Cincinnati, Ohio
Holy crap this is Blue.

A) A professor wouldn't use "why does God let bad things happen" as an atheist argument.....only idiot atheists who really have no idea what they are talking about would use that argument (or someone who's just trying to piss off who they're arguing with).

B) The student says cold and darkness do not exist, but then defines them as the absence of heat and light. Uh duh.

C) Why would a Philosophy prof. be teaching about Evolution?

D) The theory of the evolution of man says that man evolved from apes, not monkeys.

E) Evolution and the theory of the evolution of man are two different things.

F) Evolution has been proven.

G) A Professor would never say to take his lecture on faith. You do know that when teachers teach, they teach you the methods of reaching those conclusions too. Maybe in a religious school they don't and just tell you to believe it, but whatever.
 

Italian Outsider

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
37
Location
Italy
rofl.
first of all the ''student'' refuses to answer at the question ''who created evil?'';
that itself would be enough.
being unable to do it, he tries to overcome the teacher's argument, questioning about similar dualism in science.
heat and cold, light and darkness; fact is,before anything they are all concepts, a result of our perception.the scienfical theories come after the concept.
yet he accepts the God/Satan dualism ,and he says they exist.
so they are not a result of perception, before anything they are essence.
but a concept is a result of a mind, essence isn't, his comparison does not stand;
you cannot compare the logic field to the ontologic.
on the other side, you could say, the concept of God comes first as the light/heat does,so you can make the comparison...but if it does, then God is the result of our mind, he didn't create us, we created him. then he is not the superior being, then he doesn't exist.



notes:
-the attempt to question evolution is plain weak,i'm not even wasting my time on it.
-as for the brain, go to the hospital, ask the doctor to open your head, then he can smell, lick and eat your brain, we don't need faith.
- a real atheist would never answer '' he has faith in lectures'', that's a thing only religious people say. it's pretty obvious from that there is a religious person behind it, so yea, a debate between the splitted personalites of a religious person is... meh... i'm out of ''casual talk''.

i may agree the link between man and god is faith, but it's not only that, other links are ignorance and in most cases stupidity. but how is that ''what keeps things moving and alive?'' the ''student'' didn't say anything about..
and if you make a statement you should support your claim, if not, they're just empty words.

edit:
A) A professor wouldn't use "why does God let bad things happen" as an atheist argument.....

it's a common thing used in philosophy, maths and physics, i don't know how it's called in english, in italian it's the ''Demonstration from absurd''. you start by accepting the absurd as true, the negation of what you want to demonstrate, then proceed by showing its contraddictions, demolishing it and proving it absurd.

edit 2 : and rofl at the definition of death: absence of life. by that logic is a stone dead? there is no life in it, so it must be.. how can stones die?
 

the dark knight

Guest
LOL that shit was emailed to me months ago by a dumb muslim and i just laughed at it then deleted it.
 

MikeRaw

Guest
How am I supposed to know that that's a real conversation? If it is, that professor is just stupid. But for the reasons already mentioned by Chuck and TIO, I doubt it's a real conversation. The "professor" played into all the traps.
There's more proof to support the theory of evolution (especially after what they revealed on Monday), or any other theory of how we got here, than the theory that there's actually a god who created us.
 

Luke Flywalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
2,484
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Age
37
Location
Guitarway To Heaven
Favorite Wrestler
paige
Favorite Wrestler
romanreigns
Favorite Wrestler
machoman
Favorite Wrestler
stonecold
Favorite Wrestler
wyattfamily
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan2
...to cast light on an object is to create a shadow elsewhere. Where there's good, evil is right behind it.

I'm not going to break down into all of this too deep right now, but I suggest anyone questioning God and prayer should read "The Third Jesus" by Deepak Chopra. If you take Jesus' words literally, you'll find that he talks of God-consciousness in the same light that Buddhism preaches. The light is within you, God is the light, Heaven is on Earth, the Lord is the light, you are the throne of God.

Jesus spoke of God as though he's your feeling when you become enlightened to the idea that man is great and can achieve anything. When you eliminate doubt, you discover truth.
 

C4

Guest
I knew this shitstorm was coming. Probably the only reason why I posted this. -_-

Holy crap this is Blue.

If it's Blue why did you waste your time typing that paragraph? Certainly worthy of some valuable discussion. :shifty:
A) A professor wouldn't use "why does God let bad things happen" as an atheist argument.....only idiot atheists who really have no idea what they are talking about would use that argument (or someone who's just trying to piss off who they're arguing with).

Why not? That's just your opinion. Have you ever spoken to some Atheist Philosophy Professor? No. Then how can you say that they don't use XYZ atheist arguments?
B) The student says cold and darkness do not exist, but then defines them as the absence of heat and light. Uh duh.

So does that mean they 'exist'?

If i 'define' my imagination, it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists. He just said that this is darkness and this is cold. They certainly don't exist.
C) Why would a Philosophy prof. be teaching about Evolution?

Lol, do you even know what Philosophy is? They're SUPPOSED to teach existence and evolution, it's one of the most important lessons of Philosophy.
D) The theory of the evolution of man says that man evolved from apes, not monkeys.

God. They're all part of the Hominoidea. Biologically they're the same.
E) Evolution and the theory of the evolution of man are two different things.

Read those lines again. Both of them are obviously talking about the evolution of humans.
F) Evolution has been proven.

When? Where? How? Links please.

G) A Professor would never say to take his lecture on faith. You do know that when teachers teach, they teach you the methods of reaching those conclusions too. Maybe in a religious school they don't and just tell you to believe it, but whatever.

He is a Philosophy Professor. And like I said before they're supposed to teach existence and evolution.
 

Luke Flywalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
2,484
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Age
37
Location
Guitarway To Heaven
Favorite Wrestler
paige
Favorite Wrestler
romanreigns
Favorite Wrestler
machoman
Favorite Wrestler
stonecold
Favorite Wrestler
wyattfamily
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan2
He is a Philosophy Professor. And like I said before they're supposed to teach existence and evolution.

No they're not. Philosophy isn't about teaching without proof, it's not about teaching anything at all really. Philosophy is about challenging the unknown to become known. To not be stupid, admit your ignorance and overcome it.

No philosophical "master" would condone teaching or forcing an idea upon another. It's an art where one should be able to sit face-to-face and not only question the known and unknown, but challenge each other to come up with an answer, and accept the difference in opinion each other may have.


EDIT: And you never... eeeeeeeeeeeever... TELL someone what is or isn't. You always stay even and in between both sides of the argument, willing to bend your own perception to either side.
 

C4

Guest
No they're not. Philosophy isn't about teaching without proof, it's not about teaching anything at all really. Philosophy is about challenging the unknown to become known. To not be stupid, admit your ignorance and overcome it.

You've said it yourself and yet you're saying that Philosophy shouldn't teach Evolution and Existence.

No philosophical "master" would condone teaching or forcing an idea upon another. It's an art where one should be able to sit face-to-face and not only question the known and unknown, but challenge each other to come up with an answer, and accept the difference in opinion each other may have.

I get it. But what does this have to do with teaching Evolution?
 

Wrestling Station

Guest
C4, just leave it to this point. Enough arguements about it on this forum, its useless. Let them do whatever they want, dont waste your time trying to help such people. Its useless.

Just leave it.
 

C4

Guest
C4, just leave it to this point. Enough arguements about it on this forum, its useless. Let them do whatever they want, dont waste your time trying to help such people. Its useless.

Just leave it.

I'm not trying to help anybody and neither am I convincing anybody to believe in the concept of 'God'.
 

Luke Flywalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
2,484
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Age
37
Location
Guitarway To Heaven
Favorite Wrestler
paige
Favorite Wrestler
romanreigns
Favorite Wrestler
machoman
Favorite Wrestler
stonecold
Favorite Wrestler
wyattfamily
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan2
You've said it yourself and yet you're saying that Philosophy shouldn't teach Evolution and Existence.



I get it. But what does this have to do with teaching Evolution?

I said what myself? And no, philosophy shouldn't teach evolution and existence. Again, it shouldn't teach ANYTHING. It's about discovering your own opinion on a subject through discussion with another, hopefully influencing each others opinion not through force or teaching, but through eliminating the unknown and accepting the known, and hopefully coming to some form of conclusion.

And what can't be concluded isn't eliminated as being false, but solely as the unknown, which should be sought to be known.

If anything is taught, forced, or one-sided, it's called stupidity, which is worse than ignorance, and wisdom cannot be achieved through stupidity. This results in philosophy not being key for the individual trying to teach, force, or blindside their idea.
 

Wrestling Station

Guest
I'm not trying to help anybody and neither am I convincing anybody to believe in the concept of 'God'.

eeeh well, I adviced you but from this point; just enjoy the outcome. bye *runs* lol
 

C4

Guest
I said what myself?

I bolded out the parts so that you can see them. :49:

And no, philosophy shouldn't teach evolution and existence. Again, it shouldn't teach ANYTHING.

What are you saying dude? So Philosophy should be 'discovered' and not 'taught'?

By teaching I mean the transfer of knowledge.
It's about discovering your own opinion on a subject through discussion with another

Agreed. And to add to it, if you've learned something from the other person during discussion. You've basically been 'taught'.

I don't see why Philosophy can't teach.

hopefully influencing each others opinion not through force or teaching, but through eliminating the unknown and accepting the known, and hopefully coming to some form of conclusion.

And what can't be concluded isn't eliminated as being false, but solely as the unknown, which should be sought to be known.

If anything is taught, forced, or one-sided, it's called stupidity, which is worse than ignorance, and wisdom cannot be achieved through stupidity. This results in philosophy not being key for the individual trying to teach, force, or blindside their idea.

God. I know what Philosophy is.
Stop teaching me the meaning of Philosophy, stick to the topic.