Okay, so I kinda missed this past week...and remember that story about the student and teacher discussing God?

But I got busy. Lots of personal issues that I was dealing with. Because I'm feeling kind of lazy and have a headache tonight, I'll post something I wrote a while ago. It's a total bastardization of the infamous semi meme where a student in a philosophy class totally trounces his professor in an improbably set up debate...

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…

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?

(Student is silent.)

Professor: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

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 does not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Professor: Science says that you have five senses you use to identify the world and observe the world around you. Tell me, son…Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Professor. Tell us if you’ve 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: 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 that 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 becomes 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 is pin drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

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 light. 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 isn’t. If it were, you would not 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 that your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue that 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 monkeys?

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 shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist, but a preacher?

(The class is in an uproar.)

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

(The class breaks 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, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at his student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it, sir. The link between man and God is faith. That is all that keeps things moving and alive.

(The professor is silent for a moment. Then…)

Professor: Now that I’ve let you win and make all the points you’ve read off of the internet….

(He reaches into his desk and pulls out several sheets of paper. He drops them onto the student’s desk.)

Professor: Go ahead and have a look. Tell me, what do you see?

Student: It looks…like a brain, sir.

Professor: That’s right. Those are MRIs of my brain. Son, for thousands of years humans have been cutting each other open and seeing what’s inside. Every human who’s been cut open has had a brain. Therefore, the evidence that others of my species have brains, coupled with the evidence of this MRI, a technology that has been proven to be rather reliable on many occasions, work together to provide a sound basis for the assumption that a brain occupies my cranium. Would you like to dispute this?

Student: (quietly) No, sir.

(Professor reaches in his desk and brings out news clippings.)

Professor: Here I have a newspaper article describing an Indian girl who was born with four arms and four legs. Would I be correct in asserting that humans normally don’t have eight limbs?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: Would I also be correct in asserting that, if they functioned properly, these limbs could give this girl an advantage in survival over another girl in certain situations?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: Furthermore, would that increased chance of survival give her a greater chance of having offspring, if other potential mates for a male who have only four limbs are all killed off?

Student: I suppose so, sir.

Professor: Here we have evidence of evolution at work, son. I have another article here that describes a geneticist’s work in REVERSING evolution, who has successfully used a gene to make a chicken embryo grow a reptilian tail. Now, here is another article which describes a startling discovery that scientists have made: they have observed apes using SPEARS to HUNT PREY. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: Now, son, I know that there’s no such thing as cold, darkness, or death. I took devil’s advocate because I’ve seen this same conversation before, and I wanted to see if you had anything original to offer. You don’t. Tell me, son, can you define evil as simply the absence of good, or God, as it were?

Student: That’s how I think of it, sir.

Professor: You claim that God is all powerful. In fact, a common religious statement is that God is everywhere, is that correct?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: How, son, can God be everywhere if evil is the absence of God? Therefore, our definition of evil must be modified. Darkness is the absence of light, but evil is NOT the absence of good. There is a neutral ground between good and evil.

(Professor waves arm through air.)

Professor: Waving my arm did not have any tangible effect on you, me, or anyone in this room. Would you call my action good? Would you call it evil? It is neither; it is a neutral action. However, if I were to hit you, it would be painful. It would hurt you. It would be done without provocation, therefore it could be defined as immoral, or EVIL. If I were to hit you after you pulled a gun on me, it would stop you from shooting and killing me. Therefore, it could be defined as moral, or GOOD. Good and evil CAN be measured and defined.

(Student is silent.)

Professor: Nice try, son. I applaud you for trying to defend your beliefs, really, I do. However, you cannot call your beliefs reasonable or logical…unless you have anything else to offer the class today?


(Student shakes his head.)

Professor: Very well. I suggest that you concentrate more on checking your premises and less on attempting to make your professors look like fools for the remainder of the semester. Class dismissed.