點解咁……長……
有部份強詞奪埋，有部份一廂情願；登出嚟，因為意外地同呢度近排拗得幾行嘅題目有雷同……都叫做有啖笑吓：
（星星之下絕無添加、更無刪減）
* * * * *
內容有些長,但絕對值得大家花時間去看去思考
「信耶穌不合科學。」一個哲學教授上課時說。
他頓了一頓，叫了一個新生站起來，說：「某某同學，你是基督徒嗎？」
「老師，我是。」
「那麼你一定信上帝了？」
「當然。」
「那上帝是不是善的？」
「當然。上帝是善的。」
「是不是上帝是全能的？祂無所不能，對嗎？」
「對。」
「你呢？你是善是惡？」
「聖經說我有罪。」
教授撇撇嘴笑：「哈，聖經。」頓了一頓，說：「如果班上有同學病了，你有能力醫治他，你會醫治他嗎？起碼試一試？」
「會。」
「那麼你便是善的了．．．」
「我不敢這麼說。」
「怎麼不敢？你見別人有難，便去幫助．．．我們大部分人都會這樣，只有上帝不幫忙。」
一片沉默。
「上帝不幫忙。對嗎？我的弟弟是基督徒，他患了癌症，懇求耶穌醫治，可
是他死了。上帝 是善的嗎？你怎麼解釋？」
沒有回答。
老教授同情他了，說：「你無法解釋。對吧？」
他拿起桌子上的杯，喝一口水，讓學生有機會喘一口氣。這是欲擒先縱之計
策。
「我們再重新來討論。上帝是善的嗎？」
「呃．．．，是。」
「魔鬼是善是惡？」
「是惡。」
「那怎麼有魔鬼呢？」學生不知道怎麼回答。
「是．．．是．．．上帝造的。」
「對，魔鬼是上帝造的。對嗎？」老教授用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的頭髮，對傻笑著的全體同學說：「各位同學，相信這學期的哲學課很有興趣。」
回過頭來，又對站著的那同學說：「世界可有惡的存在？」
「有。」
「世界充滿了惡。對吧？是不是世上所有一切，都是上帝造的？」
「是。」
「那麼惡是誰造的？」
沒有回答。
「世界有不道德的事嗎？有仇恨、醜陋等等一切的惡嗎？」
該學生顯得坐立不安，勉強回答：「有。」
「這些惡是怎麼來的？」
沒有答案。
忽然老教授提高聲調說：「你說，是誰造的？你說啊！誰造的？」
他把臉湊到該學生面前，用輕而穩定的聲音說：「上帝造了這一切的惡。對
吧？」
沒有回答。
該學生嘗試也直視教授，但終於垂下了眼皮。
老教授忽然轉過身來，在班前踱來踱去，活像一隻老黑豹。同學們都進入被
催眠狀態。
這時老教授又開腔了：「上帝造這一切的惡，而這些惡又不止息的存在，請問：上帝怎可能是善的？」教授不斷揮舞著他張開的雙手，說：「世界上充滿了仇恨、暴力、痛苦、死亡、困難、醜惡，這一切都是這位良善的上帝造的？對吧？」
沒有回答。
「世上豈不是充滿了災難？」停了一下，他又把臉湊到該新生面前，低聲說：「上帝是不是善的？」
沒有答話。
「你信耶穌基督嗎？」他再問。
該學生用顫抖的聲音說：「老師，我信。」
老教授失望地搖了搖頭，說：「根據科學，我們對周圍事物的觀察和了解，是用五官。請問這位同學，你見過耶穌沒有？」
「沒有。老師，我沒見過。」
「那麼，你聽過祂的聲音嗎？」
「我沒有聽過祂的聲音。」
「你摸過耶穌沒有？可有嚐過他？嗅過他？你有沒有用五官來感覺過上帝？」
沒有回答。
「請回答我的問題。」
「老師，我想沒有。」
「你想沒有嗎？還是實在沒有？」
「我沒有用五官來接觸過上帝。」
「可是你仍信上帝？」
「呃．．．是．．．」
老教授陰陰地笑了：「那真需要信心啊！科學上強調的，是求證，實驗，和示範等方法，根據這些方法，你的上帝是不存在的。對不對？你以為怎樣？你的上帝在哪裡？」
學生答不上來。
「請坐下。」
該同學坐下，心中有說不出的沮喪。
這時，另一個同學舉起手來，問：「老師，我可以發言嗎？」
老教授笑說：「當然可以。」
學生說：「老師，世界上有沒有熱？」
教授答：「當然有。」
「那麼，也有冷嗎？」
「也有冷。」
「老師，您錯了。冷是不存在的。」
老教授的臉僵住了。課室裡的空氣頓時凝結。
這位大膽的同學說：「熱是一種能，可以量度。我們有很熱、加熱、超熱、大熱、白熱、稍熱、不熱，卻沒有冷──當然，氣溫可以下降至零下四百五十八度，即一點熱也沒有，但這就到了極限，不能再降溫下去。冷不是一種能量。如果是，我們就可以不斷降溫，直降到超出零下四百五十八度以下,可是我們不能。『冷』只是用來形容無熱狀態的字眼。我們無法量『冷』度，我們是用溫度計。冷不是一種與熱對立的存在的能，而是一種無熱狀態。」
課室內靜得連一根針掉在地上也能聽到。
「老師，」該學生竟又問：「世上有沒有黑暗？」
「簡直是胡混。如果沒有黑暗，怎可能有黑夜？你想問甚麼．．．？」
「老師，您說世上有黑暗嗎？」
「對．．．」
「老師，那麼你又錯啦！黑暗是不存在的，它只是無光狀態。光可分微光、亮光、強光、閃光，黑暗本身是不存在的，它只是用來描述無光狀態的字眼。如果有黑暗，你就可以增加黑暗，或者給我一瓶黑暗。老師，你能否給我一瓶黑暗？」
教授見這小子大言不慚，滔滔不絕，不覺笑了。
「這學期倒真有趣。這位同學，你到底想說甚麼呀？」
學生說：「老師，我是說，你哲學的大前提，從一開始就錯了，所以結論也錯
了。」
「錯了．．．？好大的膽子！」老教授生氣了。
「老師，請聽我解釋。」全體同學竊竊私語。
「解釋．．．噫，．．．解釋．．．」教授好不容易才控制住自己，待情緒漸漸平伏後，即使個手勢，叫同學們安靜。讓該同學發言。
學生說：「老師，您剛才所說的，是二元論哩。就是說，有生，就必有死。有一個好的神，也有一個惡的神。你討論上帝時，所採用的，是一個受限制的觀點。你把上帝看作一件物質般來量度，但是科學連一個『思維』，也解釋不了。科學用電力，又用磁力，可是卻看不見電，看不見磁力，當然，對兩者也不透徹了解。把死看作和生命對立，是對死的無知。死不是可以獨立存在的。死亡不是生命的反面，而是失去了生命。」說著，他從鄰坐同學的桌內，取出一份小報來，說：「這是我們國內最下流的一份小報，是不是有不道德這回事呢？」
「當然有不道德．．．」
「老師，你又錯了。不道德其實是缺德。是否有所謂『不公平』呢？沒有，『不公平』只是失去了公平。是否有所謂『惡』呢？」學生頓了一頓，又繼續說：「惡豈不是失去善的狀態嗎？」
老教授氣得臉色通紅，不能說話。
該學生又說：「老師，就是因為我們可以為善，也可以為不善，所以才有選擇的自由呢。」
教授不屑一顧：「作為一個教授，我看重的是事實。上帝是無法觀察的。」
「老師，你信進化論嗎？」
「當然信。」
「那麼你可曾親眼觀察過進化的過程？」
教授瞪瞪該位同學。
「老師，既然沒有人觀察過進化過程，同時也不能證實所有動物都還在進化之中，那麼你們教進化論，不等於在宣傳你們的主觀信念嗎？」
「你說完了沒有？」老教授已不耐煩了。
「老師，你信上帝的道德律嗎？」
「我只信科學。」
「呀，科學！」學生說。「老師，你說的不錯，科學要求觀察，不然就不信。但你知道這大前提本身就錯誤嗎？」
「科學也會錯嗎。」
同學們全體嘩然。
待大家安靜下來後，該同學說：
「老師，請恕我舉一個例子。我們班上誰看過老師的腦子？」同學們個個大笑起來。
該同學又說：「我們誰聽過老師的腦子，誰摸過、嚐過，或聞過老師的腦子？」
沒人有這種經驗。
學生說：「那麼我們能否說老師沒．．．？」
（註：本文在網路上傳來傳去，作者不知名。謹此向作者致謝。）
精彩的辯證(不要錯過)
💬 29 則回應
為何將 "哲學教授" 咁情緒化?
就像 梁XX 寫哲學小說將佛家人作面目猙獰的人一樣?
"哲學教授" 是否 經已看破生死，無慾無求嗎?
聽說呢份野有個英文原稿的, 請大家過目。好長的.......
A professor and a student
LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could.........in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm?
Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young man."
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From...God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian.
"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
No answer.
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian's face.
In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
No answer.
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"
Pause. "Don't you?"
The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
No answer.
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus...
In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
No answer.
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!"
The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer.
"Sit down, please."
The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard!
Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian 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."........Silence.
The professor replied,"First . I have never said that cold is the opposite of heat. By your implying that that I did, you are putting words in my mouth. Cold is a relative measurement of heat especially below zero. Any temperature of heat under zero can be described by the definition of cold. As I said that cold is not the opposite of heat, it is merely a description of heat in relation to its relative state to absolute zero. Furthermore, I can extend the premise of your arguement and apply it to the description of size. There is no such thing as shrinkage because being small is just the absence of being big or absence of positive growth in size.
The smallest particle in this universe is electron that resides in an atom, Since anything that shrinks will eventually end up not going any smaller, can we say that the process of shrinkage never exists?"
The Christian is perplexed and confused. This Christian is really ready to give up knowing otherwise that he would make a scene out of himself and be the laughing stock of others for the rest of the semester.
Silence sweeps through the room. After a brief pause, the crowd is thrilled and thrown to the edges of their seats between this exchange of words.
A piece of paper drops from the Christian's hand. On the paper is a list of questions that the Christian has prepared previously which he perceives now to be too ridiculous to bring up. As the Christian is almost ready to make his way back to his seat, he is asked to stay further more to challenge the professor. He reluctantly obliges.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor? I know it is now a stupid question."
"That's a dumb question,right on, son. What is night if it isn't a state of darkness? What are you getting at...? Didnt God say in your Bible,' let there be dark' Are you getting at denying this so-called act of God?"
"So you say there IS such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..., speaking in your own term as according to your Bible....and No in the sense that darkness is a state and not a thing."
"You're wrong again, sir. 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 is what I said, you idiot. I said that darkness is not a thing just as being hungry,being small, being rich,being poor, being dark, being light is not a thing. Well darkness can be the state of relative presence of something."professed the professor.
"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?"
"Of course, only idiot like you would come up with the question of misleading somebody into acknowledging that darkness is a thing. Can you give me a jar of "small", "hungry". How about your God which claims to be omnipotent?"
Despite getting the upper hand, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.
"This will indeed be a good semester. Would you mind telling us what more you have got in your magic box, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"
The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to help the Christian regain control because he is suffering from an unstable state of mind after being overwhelmed by the professor's show of intelligence.
As usual, he is affability itself.
He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains.
"That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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."
"Did I say life is the opposite of death? Did I say that I am viewing things in duality? There is no such state as being in the opposite. Just as there is no such thing as baby being the opposite of old man or healthy new-born baby girl being the opposite of old woman with cancer. All things only exist in a state along a line of continuum. Human is a continuation of four-legged animal and plants.This is evolution, the science of the respect for growth. You never witness the folks compling the Bible, can we say that Bible can be written by aliens from outer space?"
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it.
"Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there isnt, experience and facts are only as good as the meaning we attach to them. Nothing is immoral just as nothing is moral"
"Wrong again, sir. 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?"
"No, immorality is not the abscence of morality. Immorality is morality in the eyes of the beholder.PERIOD"
The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
"Evilness and righteousness is a zero-sum game. They cancel out each other in principle. One's act can be considered as evil and righteous at the same time. They co-exist and can not be mutually exclusive. What makes you think that God is accompishing something even if he exists? This is just your assumption that God can not stand doing nothing and sitting around. If evilness is the agency then its purpose is to combat the so-called righteousness because it is again a zero-sum game. "
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.
"What makes you think that there is no moral code in this world just because it is not coming from the Bible?"
"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!"
"How about newspaper reporting Christians acting in voilence? We read news like that all the time.Those are people mind-controlled by God's will."
"Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
"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?"
"Well, can you prove that your stomach really absorbs your breakfast today.
How about the breakfast 50 years ago? Can you prove that the world is round with your naked eyes without any scientific instruments? If you eye-witness someone fires a gun at a victim, can you prove that the victim is really killed by the bullet because you can never see the bullet after its entrance in the victim's body. If you testify in court that you witness A firing a gun at B ,are you not just offering an opinion only. Furthermore,the bullet sweeps across the air so fast that you will never even see it as an object after it is propelled from the barrel of the gun.
If we cannot even trust our observation, what makes your spiritual connection with your God any more trustworthy. I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"If anyone can belive in any sets of moral code ,he can just be easily swayed into believing in any other moral codes - I choose science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin.
"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS NOT FLAWED,ONLY OUR CURRENT STATE OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE IS. Science exists long before man roamed the world.All answers are already out there, they are just awaiting discovery and the right piece of invention to dig them out. " the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar in reaction to the professor's insights. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent.
The Christian looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter.
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 professor replied:" Well, let me rectify your flaw. Let's say a blind person never sees you as an entity, can you say that you never exist.
The world can see but can be blinded by their obesession over some sugar-coated misleading propaganda released by some unscrupulous politicans or religious leaders."
The class is in chaos and cheers for the professor in ecstasy.
The Christian sits in shame... Because that is the state in which he is originally to be there for.
大家請留意，中英文版結局唔同wor!
係咪學左無間道呀？
英文版火藥味重啲，我鐘意。
哄傻瓜
從李天命老師的答問所錄下的筆記當中, 轉載點滴如下：
[1] 奧古斯丁為了解釋全能全善的上帝所造的世界怎麼會有罪惡, 就提出「惡只是善的缺乏」這個說法。但這無非是文字把戲, 絲毫不能改變「世間有罪惡」這個事實。
對著一具死屍說：「你並沒有死, 你只是缺乏了生命。」這不過是個劣拙的笑話。
[2] 基督教認為一切都是上帝所造, 包括魔鬼也是上帝所造。全能全善的上帝要創造一個無惡不作的魔鬼出來, 不管神學家解釋得如何天花亂墜, 始終是奇哉怪也。
[3] 固然不能由「觀察不到」就推論「不存在」, 但更不能由「觀察不到」就推論「存在」, 而且更加更加不能由「觀察不到」就推論「基督教所描述的那樣的上帝存在」。
[4] 某些傳道人所用的一項慣技, 就是問聽眾：「誰見過空氣？」聽眾回答說「沒見過」。傳道人再問：「這是否等於空氣不存在？」聽眾回答說「不等於不存在」。於是傳道人就表示因此要相信聖經所描述的上帝存在。
這項慣技所屬的範疇叫做：哄傻瓜。
好！
八十年代李學徒，名不虛傳！
//固然不能由「觀察不到」就推論「不存在」, 但更不能由「觀察不到」就推論「存在」, 而且更加更加不能由「觀察不到」就推論「基督教所描述的那樣的上帝存在」。//
如果這句話是用來評論基督信仰的話，未免有失公允。由「觀察不到」就推論「存在」﹝或由「觀察不到」就推論「基督教所描述的那樣的上帝存在」﹞的基督徒恐怕是絕無僅有的。之所以有這樣說法會否是因為對基督信仰誤解了？﹝我想不單是基督教，其他宗教也不會用「觀察」來推論「存在」與否的﹞
事實上，有頗多人卻返過來常常用「觀察不到」就推論神「不存在」，這倒使人惋惜。
牛奶論證
我就確實聽過傳道人憑"空氣是我們看不見的但卻存在"就跳到"上帝存在"的結論去！
有一次傳道人甚至說:"牛吃綠色的草而竟然可以搾出白色的奶, 這麼神奇, 人類還能夠說上帝不存在嗎？！"
係呀係呀！
人食咁多好o野但出o黎o既都係X就夠神奇啦！
牛奶論證 !!!!
個傳道人無野呀嘛 ?
根本唔係宗教o既問題
係個人o既問題 !
不過多謝大孩你說出黎,
等我(地)有啖笑下 !!
這句正確否？
//學生說：「老師，我是說，你哲學的大前提，從一開始就錯了，所以結論也錯
了。」//
不過即使錯了，似乎對下面的故事也沒甚麼影響。
前提錯,結論未必錯
請留意「哲學」二字
我也同意你的看法，可是有沒有較詳盡的解釋呢？
[1]
大前提：董建華是豬(正確)
小前提：豬無尾(錯誤)
結論：董建華無尾(正確)
[2]
大前提：董建華是豬(錯誤)
小前提：豬有眼(正確)
結論：董建華有眼(正確)
我也會寫，但這種「大前提錯，結論未必錯」的推論，又是否有一個適用範圍呢？
(要另開新標題嗎？)
精彩的辯證(不要錯過)
我諗好多人都收過呢封名為"精彩的辯證(不要錯過)的email散播到四圍都係.我都唔識講勒都係等各位睇下裡面個位同學有冇李博士咁幽默啦.
>精采的辨證 (不要錯過)
>內容有些長,但絕對值得大家花時間去看去思考
>
>
>「信耶穌不合科學。」一個哲學教授上課時說。他頓了一頓，叫了一個新生站起來，說：
>「某某同學，你是基督徒嗎？」
>「老師，我是。」
>
>「那麼你一定信上帝了？」
>「當然。」
>
>「那上帝是不是善的？」
>「當然。上帝是善的。」
>
>「是不是上帝是全能的？祂無所不能，對嗎？」
>「對。」
>
>「你呢？你是善是惡？」
>「聖經說我有罪。」
>
>教授撇撇嘴笑：「哈，聖經。」頓了一頓，說：
>「如果班上有同學病了，你有能力醫治他，你會醫治他嗎？起碼試一試？」
>「會。」
>
>「那麼你便是善的了．．．」
>「我不敢這麼說。」
>
>「怎麼不敢？你見別人有難，便去幫助．．．我們大部分人都會這樣，只有上帝不幫忙。」
>
>一片沉默。
>
>「上帝不幫忙。對嗎？我的弟弟是基督徒，他患了癌症，懇求耶穌醫治，可是他死了。上帝
>是善的嗎？你怎麼解釋？」
>
>沒有回答。
>
>老教授同情他了，說：「你無法解釋。對吧？」
>他拿起桌子上的杯，喝一口水，讓學生有機會喘一口氣。這是欲擒先縱之計策。
>
>「我們再重新來討論。上帝是善的嗎？」
>「呃．．．，是。」
>
>「魔鬼是善是惡？」
>「是惡。」
>
>「那怎麼有魔鬼呢？」學生不知道怎麼回答。
>「是．．．是．．．上帝造的。」
>
>「對，魔鬼是上帝造的。對嗎？」老教授用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的頭髮，對傻笑著的全體同學說：
>「各位同學，相信這學期的哲學課很有興趣。」回過頭來，又對站著的那同學說：
>「世界可有惡的存在？」
>「有。」
>
>「世界充滿了惡。對吧？是不是世上所有一切，都是上帝造的？」
>「是。」
>
>「那麼惡是誰造的？」
>
>沒有回答。
>
>「世界有不道德的事嗎？有仇恨、醜陋等等一切的惡嗎？」該學生顯得坐立不安，勉強回答：
>「有。」
>
>「這些惡是怎麼來的？」
>
>沒有答案。
>
>忽然老教授提高聲調說：「你說，是誰造的？你說啊！誰造的？」他把臉湊到該學生面前，用輕而穩定的聲音說：
>「上帝造了這一切的惡。對吧？」
>
>沒有回答。該學生嘗試也直視教授，但終於垂下了眼皮。
>
>老教授忽然轉過身來，在班前踱來踱去，活像一隻老黑豹。同學們都進入被催眠狀態。
>
>這時老教授又開腔了：
>「上帝造這一切的惡，而這些惡又不止息的存在，請問：上帝怎可能是善的？」
>
>教授不斷揮舞著他張開的雙手，說：
>「世界上充滿了仇恨、暴力、痛苦、死亡、困難、醜惡，這一切都是這位良善的上帝造的？對吧？」
>
>沒有回答。
>
>「世上豈不是充滿了災難？」停了一下，他又把臉湊到該新生面前，低聲說：
>「上帝是不是善的？」
>
>沒有答話。
>
>「你信耶穌基督嗎？」他再問。
>該學生用顫抖的聲音說：「老師，我信。」
>
>老教授失望地搖了搖頭，說：
>「根據科學，我們對周圍事物的觀察和了解，是用五官。請問這位同學，你見過耶穌沒有？」
>「沒有。老師，我沒見過。」
>
>「那麼，你聽過祂的聲音嗎？」
>「我沒有聽過祂的聲音。」
>
>「你摸過耶穌沒有？可有嚐過他？嗅過他？你有沒有用五官來感覺過上帝？」
>
>沒有回答。
>
>「請回答我的問題。」
>「老師，我想沒有。」
>
>「你想沒有嗎？還是實在沒有？」
>「我沒有用五官來接觸過上帝。」
>
>「可是你仍信上帝？」
>「呃．．．是．．．」
>
>老教授陰陰地笑了：
>「那真需要信心啊！科學上強調的，是求證，實驗，和示範等方法，根據這些方法，你的上帝是不存在的。對不對？你以為怎樣？你的上帝在哪裡？」
>
>學生答不上來。
>
>「請坐下。」該同學坐下，心中有說不出的沮喪。
>
>
>這時，另一個同學舉起手來，問：「老師，我可以發言嗎？」
>老教授笑說：「當然可以。」
>
>學生說：「老師，世界上有沒有熱？」
>教授答：「當然有。」
>
>「那麼，也有冷嗎？」
>「也有冷。」
>
>「老師，您錯了。冷是不存在的。」
>
>老教授的臉僵住了。課室裡的空氣頓時凝結。
>
>這位大膽的同學說：
>「熱是一種能，可以量度。我們有很熱、加熱、超熱、大熱、白熱、稍熱、不熱，卻沒有冷──當然，氣溫可以下降至零下四百五十八度，即一點熱也沒有，但這就到了極限，不能再降溫下去。冷不是一種能量。如果是，我們就可以不斷降溫，直降到超出零下四百五十八度以下,可是我們不能。『冷』只是用來形容無熱狀態的字眼。我們無法量『冷』度，我們是用溫度計。冷不是一種與熱對立的存在的能，而是一種無熱狀態。」
>
>課室內靜得連一根針掉在地上也能聽到。
>
>「老師，」該學生竟又問：「世上有沒有黑暗？」
>「簡直是胡混。如果沒有黑暗，怎可能有黑夜？你想問甚麼．．．？」
>
>「老師，您說世上有黑暗嗎？」
>「對．．．」
>
>
>「老師，那麼你又錯啦！黑暗是不存在的，它只是無光狀態。光可分微光、亮光、強
>光、閃光，黑暗本身是不存在的，它只是用來描述無光狀態的字眼。如果有黑暗，你就
>可以增加黑暗，或者給我一瓶黑暗。老師，你能否給我一瓶黑暗？」
>
>教授見這小子大言不慚，滔滔不絕，不覺笑了。
>「這學期倒真有趣。這位同學，你到底想說甚麼呀？」
>
>學生說：「老師，我是說，你哲學的大前提，從一開始就錯了，所以結論也錯了。」
>「錯了．．．？好大的膽子！」老教授生氣了。
>
>「老師，請聽我解釋。」全體同學竊竊私語。
>「解釋．．．噫，．．．解釋．．．」教授好不容易才控制住自己，待情緒漸漸平伏後，即使個手勢，叫同學們安靜。讓該同學發言。
>
>
>學生說：
>「老師，您剛才所說的，是二元論哩。就是說，有生，就必有死。有一個好的神，也有一個惡的神。你討論上帝時，所採用的，是一個受限制的觀點。你把上帝看作一件物質般來量度，但是科學連一個『思維』，也解釋不了。科學用電力，又用磁力，可是卻看不見電，看不見磁力，當然，對兩者也不透徹了解。把死看作和生命對立，是對死的無知。死不是可以獨立存在的。死亡不是生命的反面，而是失去了生命。」說著，他從鄰坐同學的桌內，取出一份小報來，說：「這是我們國內最下流的一份小報，是不是有不道德這回事呢？」
>
>「當然有不道德．．．」
>
>
>「老師，你又錯了。不道德其實是缺德。是否有所謂『不公平』呢？沒有，『不公平』
>只是失去了公平。是否有所謂『惡』呢？」學生頓了一頓，又繼續說：「惡豈不是失去
>善的狀態嗎？」
>
>老教授氣得臉色通紅，不能說話。
>
>該學生又說：「老師，就是因為我們可以為善，也可以為不善，所以才有選擇的自由呢。」
>
>教授不屑一顧：「作為一個教授，我看重的是事實。上帝是無法觀察的。」
>
>「老師，你信進化論嗎？」
>「當然信。」
>
>「那麼你可曾親眼觀察過進化的過程？」教授瞪瞪該位同學。
>
>「老師，既然沒有人觀察過進化過程，同時也不能證實所有動物都還在進化之中，那麼你們教進化論，不等於在宣傳你們的主觀信念嗎？」
>
>「你說完了沒有？」老教授已不耐煩了。
>
>「老師，你信上帝的道德律嗎？」
>「我只信科學。」
>
>「呀，科學！」學生說。「老師，你說的不錯，科學要求觀察，不然就不信。但你知道這大前提本身就錯誤嗎？」
>
>「科學也會錯嗎。」
>
>同學們全體嘩然。
>
>待大家安靜下來後，該同學說：
>「老師，請恕我舉一個例子。我們班上誰看過老師的腦子？」同學們個個大笑起來。
>
>該同學又說：「我們誰聽過老師的腦子，誰摸過、嚐過，或聞過老師的腦子？」
>
>沒人有這種經驗。
>
>學生說：「那麼我們能否說老師沒．．．？」
>
>全班哄堂大笑。
>
>（註：本文在網路上傳來傳去，作者不知名。謹此向作者致謝。）
>
我思故我笑
李伯伯有冇睇過『我思故我笑』呀?
呢個topic出過啦, but what's the topic name?
咁
長?
吳蘭露
2003-01-13 21:40:59
點解咁……長……
很好的反面教材
我三年前看完《思考藝術》之後就是用這篇文章來祭旗。
小松
係? 有興趣wor.透露少少黎聽下啦
回
我都想請教各位。
不過我當時是用手寫了千字，打出來要點時間，請等等。
中大的歷史
這編野有幾十多年以上的歷史！老教授那時就自行退休！那個學生後來做左中大哲學系的教授！[好像係]李天命先生[學生時代]後來也使用這種語理挑戰那位中大的教授！而那位教授立時大笑起來！
不知道他身在何方呢？康慈在此祝他開心快樂！
回
回康慈: 我很好!
回"回": 我等你!
聽說已有反駁的文章，英文版
我找到的話一定 post 出來
英文版詳見同一條舊 thread 。
不精彩的辯證(可以錯過)
低B，但我懶得打，求其寫兩句
老教授第一部份的質疑，整體上無問題
>這時，另一個同學舉起手來，問：「老師，我可以發言嗎？」
>老教授笑說：「當然可以。」
>
>學生說：「老師，世界上有沒有熱？」
>教授答：「當然有。」
>
>「那麼，也有冷嗎？」
>「也有冷。」
>
>「老師，您錯了。冷是不存在的。」
>
>老教授的臉僵住了。課室裡的空氣頓時凝結。
>
>這位大膽的同學說：
>「熱是一種能，可以量度。我們有很熱、加熱、超熱、大熱、白熱、稍熱、不熱，卻沒有冷──當然，氣溫可以下降至零下四百五十八度，即一點熱也沒有，但這就到了極限，不能再降溫下去。冷不是一種能量。如果是，我們就可以不斷降溫，直降到超出零下四百五十八度以下,可是我們不能。『冷』只是用來形容無熱狀態的字眼。我們無法量『冷』度，我們是用溫度計。冷不是一種與熱對立的存在的能，而是一種無熱狀態。」
這個對
>
>課室內靜得連一根針掉在地上也能聽到。
>
>「老師，」該學生竟又問：「世上有沒有黑暗？」
>「簡直是胡混。如果沒有黑暗，怎可能有黑夜？你想問甚麼．．．？」
>
>「老師，您說世上有黑暗嗎？」
>「對．．．」
>
>
>「老師，那麼你又錯啦！黑暗是不存在的，它只是無光狀態。光可分微光、亮光、強
>光、閃光，黑暗本身是不存在的，它只是用來描述無光狀態的字眼。如果有黑暗，你就
>可以增加黑暗，或者給我一瓶黑暗。老師，你能否給我一瓶黑暗？」
也對
>
>學生說：「老師，我是說，你哲學的大前提，從一開始就錯了，所以結論也錯了。」
>「錯了．．．？好大的膽子！」老教授生氣了。
>
>「老師，請聽我解釋。」全體同學竊竊私語。
>「解釋．．．噫，．．．解釋．．．」教授好不容易才控制住自己，待情緒漸漸平伏後，即使個手勢，叫同學們安靜。讓該同學發言。
>
>
>學生說：
>「老師，您剛才所說的，是二元論哩。就是說，有生，就必有死。有一個好的神，也有一個惡的神。你討論上帝時，所採用的，是一個受限制的觀點。你把上帝看作一件物質般來量度，但是科學連一個『思維』，也解釋不了。科學用電力，又用磁力，可是卻看不見電，看不見磁力，當然，對兩者也不透徹了解。把死看作和生命對立，是對死的無知。死不是可以獨立存在的。死亡不是生命的反面，而是失去了生命。」說著，他從鄰坐同學的桌內，取出一份小報來，說：「這是我們國內最下流的一份小報，是不是有不道德這回事呢？」
>
>「當然有不道德．．．」
>
>
>「老師，你又錯了。不道德其實是缺德。是否有所謂『不公平』呢？沒有，『不公平』
>只是失去了公平。是否有所謂『惡』呢？」學生頓了一頓，又繼續說：「惡豈不是失去
>善的狀態嗎？」
：「惡豈不是失去善的狀態嗎？」
這個有很大問題
eg. If I just stand on a place, doing nothing. and thinking nothing. Then, at this state, 我既不在做善事，亦不在做惡事。這時是中性的in here, you see that 善的不存在does not產生惡
However and then we see we can directly 產生惡
e.g. 我去虐待人
就是惡產生了。And then on some other day when I do nothing, think nothing, 那時我沒有做善事，但惡不產生
Further note:
seems that we can say there is a scale which is something like
一件事可分成
---很很惡----很惡---惡---中性---善----很善-----很很善--------
for example,
他是個壞人，喜歡取笑別人
他是個很壞的人，喜歡打別人
他是個非常壞的人，喜歡虐待別人使人痛苦
他是個極極壞的人，喜歡虐待再虐待別人，要更痛苦的
........
you see? In here, a scale of ---惡---中性---善---- is better to describe the situation. Also you can see that the example of 「冷其實只是熱的不存在」and「暗其實只是光的不存在」並不合於善惡之case, as 惡是可以無限的，冷及暗不可以(because when there is completely no heat, then the temperture can be -273C only. Can't get lower than that. the case of darkness is similar)
>
>老教授氣得臉色通紅，不能說話。
>
>該學生又說：「老師，就是因為我們可以為善，也可以為不善，所以才有選擇的自由呢。」
note that our language sometimes can be misleading, as in the case of the story. For example, 「我不快樂」在日常生活中，常指「我傷心」。但其實假設我平靜地坐著，無任何特殊感覺。此時，我的而且確「不是快樂的」，但這「不是快樂的」卻不代表傷心。
Don't mislead by our language.
>
>教授不屑一顧：「作為一個教授，我看重的是事實。上帝是無法觀察的。」
yes the professor is stupid here
>
>「老師，你信進化論嗎？」
>「當然信。」
>
>「那麼你可曾親眼觀察過進化的過程？」教授瞪瞪該位同學。
>
>「老師，既然沒有人觀察過進化過程，同時也不能證實所有動物都還在進化之中，那麼你們教進化論，不等於在宣傳你們的主觀信念嗎？」
>
>「你說完了沒有？」老教授已不耐煩了。
>
>「老師，你信上帝的道德律嗎？」
>「我只信科學。」
>
>「呀，科學！」學生說。「老師，你說的不錯，科學要求觀察，不然就不信。但你知道這大前提本身就錯誤嗎？」
>
>「科學也會錯嗎。」
>
>同學們全體嘩然。
>
>待大家安靜下來後，該同學說：
>「老師，請恕我舉一個例子。我們班上誰看過老師的腦子？」同學們個個大笑起來。
>
>該同學又說：「我們誰聽過老師的腦子，誰摸過、嚐過，或聞過老師的腦子？」
>
>沒人有這種經驗。
>
>學生說：「那麼我們能否說老師沒．．．？」
>
>全班哄堂大笑。
>（註：本文在網路上傳來傳去，作者不知名。謹此向作者致謝。）
p.s.不妨叫作者認真思考一下
聽說呢份野有個英文原稿的, 請大家過目。好長的.......
A professor and a student
LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could.........in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm?
Can you answer that one?"
No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young man."
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From...God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian.
"Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
No answer.
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian's face.
In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
No answer.
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"
Pause. "Don't you?"
The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"
No answer.
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus...
In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
No answer.
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!"
The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer.
"Sit down, please."
The Christian sits...Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard!
Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian 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."........Silence.
The professor replied,"First . I have never said that cold is the opposite of heat. By your implying that that I did, you are putting words in my mouth. Cold is a relative measurement of heat especially below zero. Any temperature of heat under zero can be described by the definition of cold. As I said that cold is not the opposite of heat, it is merely a description of heat in relation to its relative state to absolute zero. Furthermore, I can extend the premise of your arguement and apply it to the description of size. There is no such thing as shrinkage because being small is just the absence of being big or absence of positive growth in size.
The smallest particle in this universe is electron that resides in an atom, Since anything that shrinks will eventually end up not going any smaller, can we say that the process of shrinkage never exists?"
The Christian is perplexed and confused. This Christian is really ready to give up knowing otherwise that he would make a scene out of himself and be the laughing stock of others for the rest of the semester.
Silence sweeps through the room. After a brief pause, the crowd is thrilled and thrown to the edges of their seats between this exchange of words.
A piece of paper drops from the Christian's hand. On the paper is a list of questions that the Christian has prepared previously which he perceives now to be too ridiculous to bring up. As the Christian is almost ready to make his way back to his seat, he is asked to stay further more to challenge the professor. He reluctantly obliges.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor? I know it is now a stupid question."
"That's a dumb question,right on, son. What is night if it isn't a state of darkness? What are you getting at...? Didnt God say in your Bible,' let there be dark' Are you getting at denying this so-called act of God?"
"So you say there IS such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..., speaking in your own term as according to your Bible....and No in the sense that darkness is a state and not a thing."
"You're wrong again, sir. 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 is what I said, you idiot. I said that darkness is not a thing just as being hungry,being small, being rich,being poor, being dark, being light is not a thing. Well darkness can be the state of relative presence of something."professed the professor.
"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?"
"Of course, only idiot like you would come up with the question of misleading somebody into acknowledging that darkness is a thing. Can you give me a jar of "small", "hungry". How about your God which claims to be omnipotent?"
Despite getting the upper hand, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.
"This will indeed be a good semester. Would you mind telling us what more you have got in your magic box, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"
The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to help the Christian regain control because he is suffering from an unstable state of mind after being overwhelmed by the professor's show of intelligence.
As usual, he is affability itself.
He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains.
"That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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."
"Did I say life is the opposite of death? Did I say that I am viewing things in duality? There is no such state as being in the opposite. Just as there is no such thing as baby being the opposite of old man or healthy new-born baby girl being the opposite of old woman with cancer. All things only exist in a state along a line of continuum. Human is a continuation of four-legged animal and plants.This is evolution, the science of the respect for growth. You never witness the folks compling the Bible, can we say that Bible can be written by aliens from outer space?"
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it.
"Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there isnt, experience and facts are only as good as the meaning we attach to them. Nothing is immoral just as nothing is moral"
"Wrong again, sir. 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?"
"No, immorality is not the abscence of morality. Immorality is morality in the eyes of the beholder.PERIOD"
The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
"Evilness and righteousness is a zero-sum game. They cancel out each other in principle. One's act can be considered as evil and righteous at the same time. They co-exist and can not be mutually exclusive. What makes you think that God is accompishing something even if he exists? This is just your assumption that God can not stand doing nothing and sitting around. If evilness is the agency then its purpose is to combat the so-called righteousness because it is again a zero-sum game. "
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.
"What makes you think that there is no moral code in this world just because it is not coming from the Bible?"
"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!"
"How about newspaper reporting Christians acting in voilence? We read news like that all the time.Those are people mind-controlled by God's will."
"Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
"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?"
"Well, can you prove that your stomach really absorbs your breakfast today.
How about the breakfast 50 years ago? Can you prove that the world is round with your naked eyes without any scientific instruments? If you eye-witness someone fires a gun at a victim, can you prove that the victim is really killed by the bullet because you can never see the bullet after its entrance in the victim's body. If you testify in court that you witness A firing a gun at B ,are you not just offering an opinion only. Furthermore,the bullet sweeps across the air so fast that you will never even see it as an object after it is propelled from the barrel of the gun.
If we cannot even trust our observation, what makes your spiritual connection with your God any more trustworthy. I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"If anyone can belive in any sets of moral code ,he can just be easily swayed into believing in any other moral codes - I choose science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin.
"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS NOT FLAWED,ONLY OUR CURRENT STATE OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE IS. Science exists long before man roamed the world.All answers are already out there, they are just awaiting discovery and the right piece of invention to dig them out. " the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar in reaction to the professor's insights. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent.
The Christian looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter.
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 professor replied:" Well, let me rectify your flaw. Let's say a blind person never sees you as an entity, can you say that you never exist.
The world can see but can be blinded by their obesession over some sugar-coated misleading propaganda released by some unscrupulous politicans or religious leaders."
The class is in chaos and cheers for the professor in ecstasy.
The Christian sits in shame... Because that is the state in which he is originally to be there for.
思考的好
身為基督徒的我，對於思考之好實在讚嘆不矣!神的存在對於基督徒是一個事實，卻不是不能思考，而且愈思考愈有趣。正如這種反覆辯證，才能找到真理的一角，多謝各位!
你們重複貼, 我也重複貼
//80年代李學徒
2003-01-14 00:00:47
哄傻瓜
從李天命老師的答問所錄下的筆記當中, 轉載點滴如下：
[1] 奧古斯丁為了解釋全能全善的上帝所造的世界怎麼會有罪惡, 就提出「惡只是善的缺乏」這個說法。但這無非是文字把戲, 絲毫不能改變「世間有罪惡」這個事實。
對著一具死屍說：「你並沒有死, 你只是缺乏了生命。」這不過是個劣拙的笑話。
[2] 基督教認為一切都是上帝所造, 包括魔鬼也是上帝所造。全能全善的上帝要創造一個無惡不作的魔鬼出來, 不管神學家解釋得如何天花亂墜, 始終是奇哉怪也。
[3] 固然不能由「觀察不到」就推論「不存在」, 但更不能由「觀察不到」就推論「存在」, 而且更加更加不能由「觀察不到」就推論「基督教所描述的那樣的上帝存在」。
[4] 某些傳道人所用的一項慣技, 就是問聽眾：「誰見過空氣？」聽眾回答說「沒見過」。傳道人再問：「這是否等於空氣不存在？」聽眾回答說「不等於不存在」。於是傳道人就表示因此要相信聖經所描述的上帝存在。
這項慣技所屬的範疇叫做：哄傻瓜。
genius
2003-01-14 00:04:22
好！
八十年代李學徒，名不虛傳！ //
🔒
此話題已封存
這是一個歷史話題，無法新增回應。
(This is a historic thread. Replies are disabled.)