Lets put your logic to the test grin emoticon

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

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.)

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 …

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 did not answer.)

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.)

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, 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: 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.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem 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 theater 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.

(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, well you would 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 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.

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?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was 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 was in uproar.)

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.)

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.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

By the way, that student was Einstein.

Why is faith the link between god and men? wouldn't the student only be preaching his ideas?

I mean he said that god is just impossible to comprehend,
if so how can he confirm that faith is the only link?

He believes that faith is the link of men to god but he says god and everything about him is incomprehensible if so how can he justify his words?

Why can't we just all agree that the one true God is in fact the great lord cthulu? He has my vote in 2016 elections.

hahahaha

This conversation I feel only looks like it goes in favour of the student because he had the last say. This has the problem that most religious debates have, which is that they can only attack and not defend, because neither of them could defend much of what they believed at all. I don't like debates like this because they lose focus on what it's really about. In the end it's not about being right or wrong or trying to come to an understanding but just about putting on a show and making your opponent look bad.
People need to understand that if you and your opponent believe different things then proving them wrong doesn't make you right; they're two different topics. In this case whether the Christian idea of a God is true, and the idea of evolution are both independant debates. If you look at it that way you could even look at this conversation as them both losing.
I guess the thing that always gets in the way though is faith. But really, it's such a vague idea that's meant to fill in the gaps because we as humans are stupid (or at least this is my opinion/view on this). Is it the same as belief? Because if it was then you'd need evidence and reason to have the belief first but they're using it as the reasoning and proof. But is faith really a belief without reasoning then? Doesn't that completely ruin the purpose of using logic? I disagree with faith being used as an argument because it just looks like a vague confusing way of saying that you don't have any more arguments or logic but will believe it anyway.
I guess I better stop now before I get too carried away. Everything I said was my views/opinions, I'm not telling people what to think but rather put it out there in case anyone found it interesting. Depending on how this goes I might stick around.

The teacher believed in science because at least he'd be able to comprehend that he doesn't understand or at least there are clues to be investigated, while the student defended religion by compromising the comprehensible facts while adding an incomprehensible fact(Us understanding god) and adding the sacred topping of religion "Faith"...I'm with miharu on this as mister student simply didn't defended well but just stated his counter statements.

Tell me miharu, do you believe in god? If yes, do you think that Faith is our only link to god(As preached, he IS beyond our comprehension)if no, why?

>>6 I guess, simple answer, no, but I'm more Agnostic in my views so I do think a god existing is a possibility but I doubt it. As for why, there are many reasons as to do with the concepts that don't make sense to me but I'm also yet to see how this world would be different to a world without a god. I grew up in a Christian home and in all that time I never saw anything that was supernatural. I'd like to see some proof for Christianity and God. Not history or reasoning but something supernatural. It would really simplify things don't you think? Anyway, I'm not really interested in telling people what to believe but if my opinion's wanted I don't mind giving it.

When has a debate about religions not turn into a shaming contest?

>>1 Too bad Einstein was proved wrong and shat all over for being too narrow-minded when it came to quantum physics.

>>7 I agree, I too grew up in a religious household, only unlike you, I was too gullible and easily persuaded,but in time feelings of doubt grew.

And yes if only God would just show a solid sign that he exist would be much simpler...I mean if a god exists and plans too award those with faith or those who believed in him I'd understand, but things have changed, the word faith itself is being used for ones own benefit, how would the young, the new generation see this if nothing is done too maintain the true meaning of faith...I'm just saying that if god wants too award the faithful shouldn't he at least do something about the things that undermine faith.

>>8 True, however our point is that these very types of debates are just counter productive making the student's apparent victory just plain scandalous don't you agree?

Too bad this is just an asshole teacher and an impudent student :(

Eh, my view on God is from a rather pantheistic view. I see God as the sum of all forces, matter and energy in the universe. In my model, God isn't some transcendent conscious entity, and thus lacks morality as well as concerted influence on our affairs.

>>10
Depends on the actual topic of the debate and what the prof's teaching.
If this were a serious religious debate, then yes, but if this were to proof who had better rhetoric skills then no.

The professor just didn't take his words into consideration very well. This argument could have been taken to a way better turn if he had thought first.