Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Well, it's interesting to see I'm not the only one who felt that way after reading that story.
I'm not here to try and make that poster feel bad for their beliefs, but to me, the story had huge gaping holes of logic in it.
After reading it, instead of leading me closer to a belief in God, (which is presumably the effect it had on the OP), it had the opposite effect; especially the stuff about the professor's brain. "Is there anyone in the class who has seen or touched the professors brain ? No, then you must take it on faith that he has one". Then trying to equate that to faith about religion. That is one of the most, um, 'interesting" attempts at establishing a logical correlation I have ever heard.
Ever heard of a CAT scan, or MRI ? You can easily prove with evidence, without a shadow of a doubt, that the professor does indeed have a brain. Sure, if you dont have such a machine, then you only observe the effects that suggest the brain is there (ie: the prof can breathe and eat and speak, etc.) That could be a matter of faith similar to believing on God, but it is very temporary. Once he dies, you can cut him open, and then hold his brain in your hand for proof. Any faith required is very short term. This is not at all similar (IMHO) to something where you still cannot produce concrete evidence even after thousands of years, using the latest technology available, and yet people still choose to very strongly believe in it.
I guess this is the perfect example of how everyone has a different threshold of how open they are to interpretation, and their comfort level in how tightly coupled the relationship of cause and effect has to be for them to embrace something.
Personally, I am a very logical, analytical thinker. When I read the whole "who has touched the profs brain" argument, so many big red flags pop up in my head that my whole thought process came to a screeching halt, as if the whole thing went so far off the rails of reason that there was no point in continuing to read.
For some others, I guess that does not happen, and stories such as that actually reinforce their beliefs, instead of challenging it further, which was the effect it had on me. Fascinating how different people can have such different take-aways from the same source material. I guess that's what makes the world interesting.
I would have to agree also, although I don't want to offend I do believe it is an extraordinarily weak argument. To be fair (and I mean no disrespect by this) I have NEVER seen a logical or strong argument for a higher being existing.
I still am glad people from all sides are choosing to post and even happier that we are challenging others ideas. I think that religion is something that should be more openly questioned and talked about, after all that is the only way to learn more.
That being said, I have yet to see any rational and well articulated argument for belief posted here. Certainly you can have "faith" but let us understand that it is not a credible rebuttal for evidence. By evidence I mean something that is both testable and repeatable, if anyone has an example of this please feel free to share and we can put it to the test, if not then one should ask themselves what the underlying reasons for their position truly are. Once again, not meant to offend only meant to stimulate thought and conversation.