unreasoned reasoning

i Received this fwd a few days back.....
read on to explore ridiculous reasoning.

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

Prof: You are a Hindu, 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, and smelled 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 it's 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 smelled 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.


i say, c'mon man what is this student preaching??
he has the right to choose his beliefs and so does the professor.

so are we just taking it as faith that 'we have evolved from monkeys' ?, does it not make sense that way, sound logical?
do we have any other belief to go on with or rather anything that explains us, humans' presence here?

let's take a look at the story once again - the professor's question were never answered and were scientifically (which is synonymous to logic for me) correct/valid.
now if there was/were god, would he not save his brother - which even to think sounds ridiculous.
we can/should never take this thing as a fact that god has created everything.
believers in god often would go by this reasoning - God is infinite, incomprehensible and we cannot explain him just like we can't explain many things (as mentioned in the fwd)
but no , this is an escape route - in fact it the philosophical flaw in the student's premise - philosophical trickery, if u ask me.
{and yeah the student beat the professor if the latter accepted his reasoning)
we haven't seen brain - but we do have explanation for it - we know where it is....
wouldn't it have been much easier for us to say that brain is something controlled by God and he has everybody's brain - that would put an end to any argument.

something which exists can be proven - light, electricity, heat - one can show the effects of it and prove the existence.
whereas to say [ conclusively] that something exists and then ask others to disprove it would be ridiculous.
if someone says prove that there is no electricity, one can show him the effects of it and tell what is about to happen due to that electricity - which is known.
at the same time if u say there is crexecity which makes the sun come out every morning and the moon in the night - and hey just believe it because u don't know what crexecity is and would comprehend it anyway and it is the one controlling sun, moon's movements....
now one has all the right to ask wtf is this crexecity, can we get more details on it , and can we check for it's functioning mechanism - that's a learning/progressive process
but no, we have preachers - just believe it!, crexecity is something that has not been seen, can't be and just have to believe it...

that was crexecity which was handling only the movements of sun,moon...Now
presenting to you - GOD - the wholesole manager of this universe (or whatever galactic level discoveries, of course it resides at atomic level too...were u thinking God would miss out anything?

i can understand God as a term being used as a synonym of life,to say that everything/creature has a life would also be still bearable.
when the statements turn to saying he controls everything, sees everything (or for that matter even one thing), i get slightly uncomfortable (just like when i hear politicians making bold promises - hey btw, some politicians may be good, G can't be!)

how did the reasoning go?
if you have given the power/authority to God to be the whole sole manager of this world (i'm sorry, is this not the belief? )
so how does he handle the bad,wicked things - don't want to be repetitive, but only the one's residing at a particular place are responsible for the happening at a place , and not god (it may be as vague as clouds, trees, virus, men,children,dogs objects)
what i'm trying to say is, if there is a flood somewhere - don't say God did it in a rage, or if a certain area has had exceptionally good rainfall (good crops n all) - don't credit god, he's no entity - it's the sun, the moon, the cloud, the people sweating down, the bulls leaking anything that can be seen or explained by a knowledgeable one.

so god, since u r handling all the things in this world, why make anyone sad (hey u control everybody's emotions as well (brains?), but somehow u control my brain insuch a way that makes me want to make people aware of your non-existence!), why let a simple goodpoor man die of hunger,cold or the hard-working, has-worked-to-earn-the status rich man get a sudden business loss (or a personal tragedy)
or has the God been demoted to handle only the good good things....