A challange to your best arguments: TEAR THIS APART.

Savage

Feel free to tear this apart with your best argument.

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

PROF: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.

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? (Student is silent.)

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.
(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?
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 its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. 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?
(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 on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in 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, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
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 is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Moloth · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject:

*sigh*

well, we have EVIDENCE that the Prof has a brain.

we can TEST to see if the Prof has a brain.
Surgery, scans, or a very heavy rock could ALL reveal his grey matter.

I've seen this shitty little spam e-mail many, many times. And i've debunked it line for line... please don;t make me do it again. Sad

_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-

www.Moloth.com

Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total

infidelmike · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

Todangst from the RRS forum made a parody of some infamous MySpace bulletin about God. I'm going to look for it and post it here.
_________________
FreeThinkingTeens

infidelmike · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:

(Ok, I found it.)

Now for the story:

The university professor challenged his students with this question: Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!" "God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes, Sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil; since evil exists and, according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil." The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact, Sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is, in reality, the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460° F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism
to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, Sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exists just as result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name ---
Albert Einstein

You know that one? Good. Time to deconstruct it. Let's get started.
First - this story is an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Second - Einstein was a Pantheist, by definition. Practically an atheist in disguise.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by
Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York,
April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side

Third - Einstein is only put forth as the author because he's about the only genius that the unawashed masses are aware of.

Fourth - The college professor is put forth as an arrogant, dogmatic man who views science as a religion and views questions from students as a challenge to his worldview. The student is put forth as a polite, honest, skeptic. The reality is that the roles are reversed: while a scientist can be dogmatic and a theist can be skeptical, science itself is skeptical, and religion itself is dogmatic. The emotional immaturity of the professor is a projection of the emotions found in the sort of theist who would actually be inspired by this tripe.

Fifth - Cold is not 'the absence of heat' anymore than "heat is the absence of cold'. Both 'hot' and 'cold' have to do with the motion of atomic and subatomic particles - "hot" and "cold" are not the opposite or the lack of one another, they are both subjective evaluations of the same thing - movement.

Sixth - This Thomistic-Augustinian semantic farce doesn't solve the problem of evil. Since an "evil" act requires human intent, a cognition, it's clearly ridiculous to call "evil" a non entity.
Seventh - "Evil is simply the absence of God"? - God is defined in the bible as omnipresent, ergo there can be no 'absence of god' as per the negative trait applied to 'god'.

Eighth - Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
Note: some respond by stating that later versions of this passage change the word 'evil' to something else, such as causing disaster. However, to purposely cause disaster is to act in an evil manner, so
this 'solution' just moves the problem one step back.
In addition, Rook Hawkins points out that a christian trying to defend this claim through redefinition has a lot of redacting to do:
”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”
(Lam. 3:38 ).
”...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:3).
”...all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jer. 36:3).
”I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts....” (Ezek. 20:25-26).
”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).
”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).
See also: Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezek. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 34:24, and 2 Chron. 34:28
http://www.rationalresponders.com/debunking_whitefoxs_website_the_bible_door

Now, to visualize such a dialogue in an environment with REASON and without PREJUDICE, this is how it should've looked like.

"Dialogue with a young theist." by Todangst.

A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did 'God' create everything that exists?" A student replied, "Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed, seeing as
civil disagreement is the very point of philosphy courses, no bravery is required for dissent. In fact, civil dissent is often rewarded in a philosophy class.)
"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is removed, as no student in the 21st century addresses a college professor in this fashion, and the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' from the theist mouthpiece who's actually feeling little more than contempt for the professor.'
The professor answered, "Well then, here's a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; since evil exists and, according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
The student became silently enraged over his worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project out his feelings of inadequecy as smugness coming from the professor.
The student then said: "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor. That's the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)
Student: Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies. There's heat.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."
Student: "No, sir, there isn't"
The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. (The desire to see the professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just another projection of the feelings of inadequecy found in theists who argue like this sort of pablum...)
The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, 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, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458, You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it"
Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he's heard this bad logic by now). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies? By your "logic" we could also say there is no 'heat', only differing degrees of cold.
Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)
Professor: Your choice of 'heat' over 'cold' was arbitrary. In reality, both 'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... what the philosopher John Locke properly called "secondary qualities". The secondary qualities refer to a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic and sub atomic particles. We refer to their different rates of movement as 'temperature.' So what we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat' and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.
So your entire argument is specious at best. You have not 'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a subjective term. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.
Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.
Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. "Darkness exists as a secondary quality.
Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not something, it 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? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?
Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, what we call 'light' is actually a reference to photons. You've confused a secondary quality with an attribute again. "Light and dark' are subjective terms we use to describe a measure of photons. The photons actually exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just subjective, relative terms... Doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons.
Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)
Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue, perhaps you'll see it.
Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality", the christian explains.
Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.
Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.
Professor: And here, my class, we have a special plead fallacy. Be careful, my student. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left with nothing but a mystery. So if you use this special plead to solve the problem, you can't call your god moral either. You can't call him anything. You can't say anything else about something beyond reason. So your solution is akin to treating dandruf by decapitation.
Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.
Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?
Student: Yes sir.
Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?
Student: Yes!
Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color a sound is.
Asking someone to see magnetism commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: it assumes that empircism relates to vision alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world. We can use other senses to detect these phenomena. And we can view their effects upon the world.
Furthermore, Again, you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the ridiculous implication that science knows 'nothing' about these phenomena... so you'll also want to review the section on 'arguing form ignorance.'
Do you have more to say?
Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) .... Um....... 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, merely the absence of it"
Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are subjective terms we use
to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.
Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there such a thing as immorality?"
Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk) Son... you're not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an atttribute, are you? Please... what can I do to help you see this problem?
Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?
Student: Uh.....
Professor: You're beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's what your missing. You are confusing a secondary quality... a subjective term that we can use to describe a
phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descrptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe. So by saying that 'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not removing immorality from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the term.
And notice how dishonest your argument is... in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm.
By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?
Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview....) Sir, Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.
Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in your textbook.
Student: "Professor, 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 now
not a scientist, but a priest?
Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must 'be there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we 'are there' when we observe artifacts.
Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe diferrent supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely observation, and 'real-time-observation' at that...This is a strawman of science. Science is both direct and indirect observation... it also allows for inference.
Student: "But sir! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.
Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is... Science is more than just real time observation, we also make inferences. But continue....
Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?"
Professor: Certainly.
Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"
Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking' at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenonema that we might not be able to directly see.
And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you've wasted the money you've spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading.

_________________
FreeThinkingTeens

Sal1981 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:51 am Post subject:

(continuing from the final paragraph)

Well, according to that students logic, no one has a brain, including the student bringing up that argument ... and in a puff of logic everyone falls dead to the ground.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos

Nimitz · Guest Local time: 2:09 AM

Thanks for digging that one out of the archives Mike!

PsiUmbreon · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject:

It doesn't matter whether there is a such thing as "cold" or "darkness". Because God is supposedly the creator, God is reponsible for the absence of heat or light just as much as the light or heat itself.

Also, "good" and "evil" aren't forces, they aren't anything scientific and quantifyable (like for instance heat is a measure of the internal energy of a system) and light is simply photons. "Good" and "evil" are merely adjectives used to describe people and actions.

Yeah, that one is old. It's also dumb, like all other theistic arguments.
_________________
Afterlife? After life, there is death.

Proud worshipper of the One True Tape--Duct Tape!

Gerard · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: everything

JCMac · Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:09 am Post subject:

Unbeliever · Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject:

CET · Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject:

CET · Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject:

As to the original post, the student's response was a red herring. He didn't over come any of the professor's arguments. Then there was the list of fallacies that the student went through after that, most of which have already been named.

*shrug*

Tripe.

Par for the course.
_________________
Namaste,
CET Cool

The Spiritual Atheist

"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin

Uncertainty · Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject:

This was supposted to be a challenge?! :O

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject:

Some dualities are not the case of where one is the absense of the other, some are that case.

Cold may be the absence of Heat, Dark may be the absence of Light. Negative is certainly not the absence of Positive though, nor is Female the absnece of Male. The student's premise is flawed long before you get to the secondary quality fallacy.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

Jason_Harvestdancer · Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:47 am Post subject:

Another objection. This one deals with the same subject as the "secondary characteristic fallacy" but shows that the student was actually committing a different fallacy, a simple equivocation.

"Heat" has two meanings, it can refer to general thermal energy, or it can refer to an amount of thermal energy above a psychological norm as in "it is a hot day".

"Light" has two meanings, it can refer to general photonic energy, or it can refer to an amount of photonic energy above a psychological norm as in "it is really light outside".

When the student switches from dichotomy "hot and cold" to "just heat or its absence", he switches definitions.

when the student switches from dichotomy "light and dark" to "just light or its absence", he switches definitions.

Much simpler than the secondary characteristic fallacy.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.

Visit my wife's art gallery

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Religion General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3