Have seen and replied to this fwd at least a coupla times, so all I need to do is copy paste my own reply.
-------------------------------------
First of all, faith is beyond proof.
Following a proof is not called faith, its called reason.
Secondly, if you check the reasoning given by the "student", he uses the following premises.
About heat and cold
This is where you resort to the Einstein's Theory of relativity which simply states that nothing is absolute, everything is relative. When you say something is x meters long, it means the thing is x times longer than the standard meter which has been defined as "the length of a metal rod kept in some institute in paris at Standard temperature and pressure." It is "relative" to something else.
When you say temperature is 25 degrees you have to say whether its Fahrenheit or Kelvin/Celsius without which it doesn't make sense!
This concept again has got nothing to do with god, but the student is only using it to oppose the principal's concept of duality.Again the student doesn't say anything about good and evil. He is only opposing that with arguments about heat and cold (which even science calls relative) to oppose the concept of duality without addressing the professor's question of good and evil, god and Satan!
(Btw, do you know that the fictional character 'Satan' was as harmless as Mickey mouse till 2nd century B.C when he was made into what he is today by a Jewish sect, the Essenes?)
Technically speaking, Humans didn't come from monkeys, as in; a monkey did not give birth to a human being one fine morning. But we belong to primates and followed the same evolution process. If you check the DNA of a chimpanzee, it is 98.4% similar to those of human beings. The theory of evolution is still under debate(meaning there are a lot of scientists who are sceptic about some postulates of the theory). So the professor was not teaching his opinion (as the student surmised), he was teaching a theory, or one of the theories rather, which tries to explain evolution. No scientist will ever say that Darvin's theory is the final answer to the question of evolution. It is a theory based on study of a lot of species around the world, which took Mr. Darvin 30 yrs of his life in the ship called H.M.S Beagle. (It did not take the clergy more than a coupla days to call it blasphemy without even bothering to see what it said.) Study of fossils, volcanic, oceanic and geographic data, study of cellular molecular structure of a large variety of species existing and extinct all point their fingers at evolution.
If you could discover things only with your five senses we would be much backward than we are now. A good chunk of science deals with hypothesis and assumptions rather than the five senses. How else do you forecast weather, solar and lunar eclipses? Atoms n molecules were talked about much before the invention of microscopes and such. There are things in science which are purely based on calculations, extrapolation of available data and assumptions.
But the difference is that nothing is based on pure faith.
Galileo/Copernicus did not say that earth was not the centre of universe by going into outer space! But they were convicted and punished by the clergy. Today we know who was right and who was wrong. If we had depended only on what faith told us, people might still believe that sun goes around earth!! "Every truth follows three stages, first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and later it is accepted as self-evident!"
In fact most of the things that science has proved are not directly related to five senses.
The students question about the professor's brain can be adequately answered by a scan/EEG. And yes the brain can be touched, smelled n all that.
Student says, "ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF EMPIRICAL, STABLE, DEMONSTRABLE PROTOCOL, SCIENCE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE NO BRAIN, SIR"
Wrong!! Demonstrable protocol will definitely agree that the professor has a brain. You don't even need a scan/EEG if you are following a demonstrable protocol to prove the existence of professor's brain
Principles of duality or the five senses are not things that can prove or disprove existence of god***. They can only be used to use as premises to argue without really touching the subject. Here the professor's premises are wrong and the student is only opposing those premises without proving anything about the existence/non-existence of god.
Have seen and replied to this fwd at least a coupla times, so all I need to do is copy paste my own reply.
-------------------------------------
First of all, faith is beyond proof.
Following a proof is not called faith, its called reason.
Secondly, if you check the reasoning given by the "student", he uses the following premises.
About heat and cold
This is where you resort to the Einstein's Theory of relativity which simply states that nothing is absolute, everything is relative. When you say something is x meters long, it means the thing is x times longer than the standard meter which has been defined as "the length of a metal rod kept in some institute in paris at Standard temperature and pressure." It is "relative" to something else.
When you say temperature is 25 degrees you have to say whether its Fahrenheit or Kelvin/Celsius without which it doesn't make sense!
This concept again has got nothing to do with god, but the student is only using it to oppose the principal's concept of duality.Again the student doesn't say anything about good and evil. He is only opposing that with arguments about heat and cold (which even science calls relative) to oppose the concept of duality without addressing the professor's question of good and evil, god and Satan!
(Btw, do you know that the fictional character 'Satan' was as harmless as Mickey mouse till 2nd century B.C when he was made into what he is today by a Jewish sect, the Essenes?)
Technically speaking, Humans didn't come from monkeys, as in; a monkey did not give birth to a human being one fine morning. But we belong to primates and followed the same evolution process. If you check the DNA of a chimpanzee, it is 98.4% similar to those of human beings. The theory of evolution is still under debate(meaning there are a lot of scientists who are sceptic about some postulates of the theory). So the professor was not teaching his opinion (as the student surmised), he was teaching a theory, or one of the theories rather, which tries to explain evolution. No scientist will ever say that Darvin's theory is the final answer to the question of evolution. It is a theory based on study of a lot of species around the world, which took Mr. Darvin 30 yrs of his life in the ship called H.M.S Beagle. (It did not take the clergy more than a coupla days to call it blasphemy without even bothering to see what it said.) Study of fossils, volcanic, oceanic and geographic data, study of cellular molecular structure of a large variety of species existing and extinct all point their fingers at evolution.
If you could discover things only with your five senses we would be much backward than we are now. A good chunk of science deals with hypothesis and assumptions rather than the five senses. How else do you forecast weather, solar and lunar eclipses? Atoms n molecules were talked about much before the invention of microscopes and such. There are things in science which are purely based on calculations, extrapolation of available data and assumptions.
But the difference is that nothing is based on pure faith.
Galileo/Copernicus did not say that earth was not the centre of universe by going into outer space! But they were convicted and punished by the clergy. Today we know who was right and who was wrong. If we had depended only on what faith told us, people might still believe that sun goes around earth!! "Every truth follows three stages, first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and later it is accepted as self-evident!"
In fact most of the things that science has proved are not directly related to five senses.
The students question about the professor's brain can be adequately answered by a scan/EEG. And yes the brain can be touched, smelled n all that.
Student says, "ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF EMPIRICAL, STABLE, DEMONSTRABLE PROTOCOL, SCIENCE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE NO BRAIN, SIR"
Wrong!! Demonstrable protocol will definitely agree that the professor has a brain. You don't even need a scan/EEG if you are following a demonstrable protocol to prove the existence of professor's brain
Principles of duality or the five senses are not things that can prove or disprove existence of god***. They can only be used to use as premises to argue without really touching the subject. Here the professor's premises are wrong and the student is only opposing those premises without proving anything about the existence/non-existence of god.