An Interesting Conversation Between A Student And Teacher

One issue with the debate. A philosopher has little right to actually answer scientific problems (problems = questions).

Originally posted by UsernameCory
One issue with the debate. A philosopher has little right to actually answer scientific problems (problems = questions).

what?

But doesn't that mean you are saying philosophers have little right to study science?

I'm sure philosophers wouldnt' say that about scientists

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by AusWade

 

Prove there is no God.

Ok. Well thats easy! There is no empirical way of testing that. No evidence for God = No existence.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by AusWade

 

Prove there is God.

Also an easy one. Who is God? (Biblical, because of familiarity) Well there's a whole book written about him and what he is all about, so to speak. How can existence be denied to something that has a clear definition, characteristics, etc.?

haha... couldn't resist that one. Here's one that cannot be proven false:



The Knowability Thesis= Everything real is knowable

P is true iff (if and only if) it is possible for someone to know that P

agreeable right? Right.

Q = # of stars is even

[the # of stars is even and no one knows that Q] unknowable because...

It is not true that Q and no one knows Q

(nothing can be and not be at the same time)

either ~Q or Q

If Q then someone knows Q

Q and P and R and S and..........(everything that is real) = X

Someone knows X

An all knowing being exists


that is Fitch's Paradox

[edit on 3-2-2010 by afterschoolfun]

Originally posted by stoneysauce
reply to post by tallcool1

 

When we screw up or act selfishly or unkindly to another, we blame ourselves

Except ofcourse for original sin, which we are to feel guilt for but which we blame on adam

We were given freewill by God - that's why it may seem to some that "God does nothing".

Except ofcourse that freewill has absolutely nothing to do with it seeming that "God does nothing".

I think a majority of us don't want to just sit on the couch playing playstation or hang out in mommy and daddy's basement mocking beliefs we don't understand

Why not? playing playstation hanging out with mommy and daddy is just as valid as anything else you do in life. Even Solomon recognized this when he said in Ecclesiastes that all in life is vanity. And, a good example of mocking someones belief that you dont understand is to say that, 'Basing your 9-11 conspiracy on the fact that the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707's is like saying the Titanic was a "controlled sinking" because it was designed not to sink.', as your signature seems to do. You truly do not seem to grasp that jet fuel burns at 1200 degrees whereas steel melts at 2700 degrees.

while waiting for some magical genie god to fix all of the worlds problems

Perhaps magical genie gods exist in his religion? Perhaps they are called Santa Claus.

He is also where we go when this mortal life is over.

You have much faith and conviction. Although, ultimately this statement is incorrect, according christian scripture which indicates that the meek will inherit the earth, and also, according to the three examples of Jesus performing resurrections to show that ressurrection was an actual physical event that reanimated dead on the earth and not something that wisked everyone away to heaven in some non-scriptural conservative protestant rapture. Unless you are one of those christians that believes that god is a captain on a space ship and that you must strangle yourself to cut your mortal coil to get there, in which case god help you.

But, I'll give you points for not saying 'sir' in every other sentence, like the student in quoted conversation. That was just plain annoying, honestly.

Your misunderstanding of Scripture is saddening, and I can tell that maybe this topic is a bitter source for you as you have made fun of someone that was being polite. Anyway, what you have said is not true and shows that you have been taught wrong or you have not read the Scriptures at all. If you like to know more about that, then I would love to tell you.

reply to post by trueperspective

Originally posted by trueperspective
Your misunderstanding of Scripture is saddening, and I can tell that maybe this topic is a bitter source for you as you have made fun of someone that was being polite. Anyway, what you have said is not true and shows that you have been taught wrong or you have not read the Scriptures at all. If you like to know more about that, then I would love to tell you.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing his noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in him, that's okay. Really, He's not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

EDIT- sorry that sounds like an insult (But its straight from pastafarianism!)


[edit on 3/2/10 by countercounterculture]

Originally posted by countercounterculture
reply to post by trueperspective

 

Originally posted by trueperspective
Your misunderstanding of Scripture is saddening, and I can tell that maybe this topic is a bitter source for you as you have made fun of someone that was being polite. Anyway, what you have said is not true and shows that you have been taught wrong or you have not read the Scriptures at all. If you like to know more about that, then I would love to tell you.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing his noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in him, that's okay. Really, He's not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

EDIT- sorry that sounds like an insult (But its straight from pastafarianism!)


[edit on 3/2/10 by countercounterculture]

Your perseption of me only shows your own narrow minded baised view of Christians. You read into my post the additude that you think I was protraying. Your assumption is wrong. I am hurt that you feel so bitterly about Christians. If you would like to know more about Christianity I would love to tell you.

Edit: to add "know"
Edit: I know that I can't spell, My bad

[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

But doesn't that mean you are saying philosophers have little right to study science?

Well, they'd probably just sit around and ponder why they should or shouldn't study science.

How about the idea that there are truths that cannot be proven and of which we are simply ignorant? Or the idea that the existence or non-existence of something is independent of our ability to find evidence for it? It seems to me that if we have no evidence for the existence of a particular thing, it can mean one of two things: 1) that the thing doesn't exist, or 2) that the thing does exist, but we are unable to find evidence of it's existence.

I'm just thinking... Seems we HAVE seen evolution. "Germs" are evolving (right before our eyes) to accommodate a more poisonous world.

So at least one of the student's points is invalid.

But overall, it's a good set of points.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
But overall, it's a good set of points.

The student's argument boils down to semantics. The teacher's original argument is pretty weak, and really only exists as an easy straw-man to knock down.

I enjoyed the "conversation" and I have no doubt similar conversations have happened many times in many venues.
As far as the exchange between the prof. and the student, the professor attempted to humiliate the student and the student turned the tables. Entertaining.
I think the deeper point is the fact that we don't know what the professor claims we DO know. The student made a great point about evolution being a sort of religion...taken on faith with no real evidence. Meaning, organisms mutate and change, but what evidence is there that we "evolved" from, what...nothing? A lesser form had to have evolved from an even lesser form starting where?
Or perhaps, we evolve "backwards" from a higher form.
My guess is the professor has never meditated.
By comparison, the student only stated that he had FAITH in God. Many atheists require PROOF, like the professor. I say it is impossible, and will always remain impossible to convey the reality of God to a nonbeliever. There is absolutely NO higher power that will MAKE you smell the flowers, enjoy a beautiful sunrise, or go out of your way to help someone that may not even deserve it...
For me, God is the perfection of life and existence that is deep within us, but WE have to find and nourish. It is the only path to true happiness.
It will never be revealed under a microscope.

Nice post OP. I have heard this before. I enjoy reading it every time. It reminds me of how simple minded scientist can be.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The Student raises some very interesting points towards the end of the discussion, but they unfortunately do not solve the problem of the existence of God and suffering in this world.
[edit on 1/2/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Do you believe God doesn't exist because there is suffering in the world?

good stuff - i'm gonna send this one to others

thanks for bringing it to my attention!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


mainstream science,medicine is sponsored by orion annuaki called *cia* and they are by design forbidden to come up with real world solutions benefiting the man kind. There always be evolutionfrom monkey and useless chemo and radiation therapies

I have read the Student-Teacher conversation before, but it was much longer, and on an atheist website. This is the last half of the version I originally read. I think it is obvious this conversation never took place, but the idea is interesting....


The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “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, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s ever read anything about science.

“No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.”

“That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.”

“Oh,” said the Christian.

“No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.”

“Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student.

“Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor.

“I guess not.”

“In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!”

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

“Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?”

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.”

The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed.”

The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?”

“Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?”

“Uh, no.”

“Viruses & other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitoes in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitoes. But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?”

“Well…”

“What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor.

“Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.”

The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.”

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”





[edit on 5-2-2010 by Capridalia]

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”

“I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?”

“I didn’t know that.”

“In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.”

“Really?”

“Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?”

“I guess not.”

“Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.”

“I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence.”

“Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones.”

“I guess I’m learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor.

“But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?”

The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?”

“There is the absence of good,” said the student.

“But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.”

The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.”

“If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil.”

The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.”

“So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.”

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge him by our standards.”

The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed.”

“I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow.

“If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?” “Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.”

“But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?”

“No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.”

“Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good.”

“I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.”

“There you go,” said the professor.

“But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway.”

“Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition,” said the professor.

“Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition.”

“That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!”

“Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. “This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.”

The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!”

“Yes, yes,” said the professor.

“I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse.”

“So it would seem,” said the professor.

“I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!”

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


An awesome debate! Thank you for posting it. It just goes to show, don't mess with God's children...

reply to post by theflamingswan92
You should probably read the rest of the conversation before jumping to that conclusion.

Even if I knew where the conversation was going, it was a nice read!
Thanks for posting this!