We’re all familiar with this recurring post on our Tumblr and Facebook feeds, the Christian student versus his smug atheist professor. People reblog and repost it with disgusting satisfaction in falsely assuming they’ve secured their beliefs using logic, reasoning, and all-mighty science itself. This, however, is not the case in the slightest.
I’m going to post the conversation and break it down, exposing the fallacies within it.
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.)
This is always an excellent point against the belief that the Christian god is all loving and all powerful. Any deity that is truly omnipotent could cure the cancer at whim. If the deity cannot cure the cancer, then it is not all powerful. If the deity chooses not to cure the cancer but can if it so chooses, then the deity is malevolent.
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 …
Another blow to the idea of the an all powerful deity. If God is supposedly all powerful, than it would require virtually no effort on the behalf of God to rid Satan from existence. However, Satan is supposedly in existence which either means God cannot rid the world of Satan, making him not all powerful. The other option is that God chooses not to rid the world of Satan, thus choosing not to rid the world of evil that he himself created, making him a malevolent deity.
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?
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Refer to the above commentary.
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.)
Again, god is either not all powerful or malevolent.
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, smell 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.
And the supposed professor in this scenario is correct, according to the above methods God does not exist definitely.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Stop right here, this is where the fallacies of this post start to roll. Any certified teacher of science would know that heat is relative.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Refer to the above commentary. Cold is relative, any science teacher would know this.
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.
Like I said, cold and heat is relative to each individual.
(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?
Darkness is a relative term we use to describe the visibility of an environment or object.
Again, any REAL science professor would understand this. Simply reading all of the professors supposed statements convinces me that this is all fictional designed to reassure faith.
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.
There is life and death. We can observe this so we know it’s true. We can view the cells that compose our complex bodies die and reproduce. Death isn’t the absence of life, it’s death.
Science can explain thought, we can use tools to view electric activity in the brain as we use it.
Death is the opposite of life, it’s not subjective like the ideas of good and bad. What is good or bad is a matter of interpretation of how one perceives these two definitions. I, like many others, would perceive a supposedly all powerful all loving deity who would not cure cancer, something that is supposedly created by the deity itself, to be a malevolent deity.
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?
Fallacy of a supposed entrapment in a logical position. However we have observed evolution with our own eyes, on both a micro and macro level. We have endless data that shows gradual change throughout the existence of biological life on earth. Fossil records, genetically breeding animals to enhance or remove traits, watching bacterium and viruses evolve at alarming rates to continue infecting other biological organisms.
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.)
Refer to my above commentary. We have evidence, overwhelming evidence.
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.)
Thanks to biology we can conclude that all humans require a brain to function. We know this through autopsy and MRI scanning, we can in fact view the human brain. The fact that this supposed professor is speaking and responding is enough evidence to conclude that the professor does in fact have a brain.
You know the comical part of this? I’ve encountered Christians who actually think this is a viable argument for their position.
“YOU CAN’T SEE (insert ridiculous assertion here) SO DOES THAT NOT EXIST?)
If we have physical evidence for it’s existence beyond a 4,000 year old book or a supposed eye-witness account, we can conclude it exists.
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.
You don’t need faith to conclude you have a brain, again, we know for 100% fact that any person who can speak, see, talk, hear, or think indeed has a brain.
Faith is not evidence, faith is belief in something that is not proven to exist. If simply thinking that something exists makes it exists by this posts Bill O’Reilly grade logic, then Big Foot exists, the Loch Ness monster exists, Zeus exists, Atlantis exists, secret alien civilizations on Mars exist, the earth is flat, and we’re the center of the universe. THAT is faith, you can see how different it is from evidence.
We can conclude that whoever created this joke of an argument for the validation of faith has no clear understanding of science whatsoever. There are a few variations of this post, including on with the ludicrous claim that Einstein himself said this (which still would not validate anything in here).
Now let’s assume for just a fraction of a second that this discussion actually happened, there genuinely was a professor who doesn’t understand science (how did he get that job?) and he was defeated intellectually by some inspiring Christian boy, nothing he said has any validity whatsoever. It’s all nonsensical bullshit.
End of discussion.