dimossi

I received this in an e-mail from some fundie today. Anyone care to help me systematically destroy this illogical argument? Thanks in advance, Dimo.

THE E-MAIL:

Now here is something to think about.

At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. In the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade and mock those who professed their faith.

One semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and in response, a young man raised his hand. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?" "Yes, he did sir." the young man replied.

The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil." The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.

Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?"

"Yes, you may," responded the professor.

The young man stood up and said, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?" "Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"

The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold, is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not present."

The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light."

Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?" The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, murders, and all sorts of violence everywhere in the world, these things are evil."

The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The professor had nothing to say.

braces_for_impact

Bah. Sounds like a Chick tract. Like a professor wouldn't get his butt sued off for "being tough on Christians".

Secondly, I thought god was omnipresent? If god is everywhere, then how can evil exist, if evil is simply the non-presence of said deity?

Other than that, this just seems to be somantics games and equivocation. Standard fundie mail fare IMHO.

Just another way to attempt to convince fundies that they really are persecuted.

cpickett

• There is no hot without cold. So what we consider to be hot is actually the absence of cold.
• There is no light, it is simply the absense of Dark.
• God is the absense of Good.

These are all relative terms, they can be put in reverse of the way this guys is saying, to where:

"Actually, sir, good does not exist. Good is simply the absence of God. Good is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create good. Good is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The problem comes from the fact that Good is a relative term, as such it requires an opposite before it means anything. You can't have good without evil, or vice versa, an act without either would not be good or evil, it would just be... In Christian terms, God has always existed and is the only God, God is not relative. Because of this God has no comparison of Evil so that he can be definitively Good, God just is. This in no way precludes him from being good, but it also does not preclude him from being evil. The only way for a God to be the definitive definition of Good would be to have an equally Evil counterpart.

beastmaster

The problem with the story is that it is constructed to refute a strawman argument:

"The student" is simply pointing out the unstated assumption in "the professor's" intentionally weak argument-- i.e., the assumption that evil is a thing, rather than an absence. Because "the prof" has not established that evil is a thing, his conclusion is a non-sequitor.

I don't think there is anything illogical with the student's position, but I am sure there are many learned Xns who would disagree with his interpretation of the nature of evil.

I would take this email more seriously if it had biblical citations -- as is, it has the hallmarks of make-it-up-as-you-go Xnty.

mike_decock

The fallacy in this argument is that the antithesis of evil is not "God", the antithesis of evil is "good". God is simply a personification of the concept of "good", just as "Satan" is a personification of the concept of "evil".

-Mike...

Shake

*COUGH* strawman! *COUGH*

Volker.Doormann

I think, there is something wrong in that arguing of the student.

The absent of heat does not mean, that the laws of physics are absent. It is only an extreme position in the order of physics. If one likes to see similarities to god, then this means, that the laws of physics representing god and the state of darkness or the state of no heat is uncomfortable but well in harmony with the laws of god. It is the freedom of each acting creature to live in darkness or light, in regions of minor heat or greater heat. The only very important point is the law of causality; with each acting with the elements of nature an effect is coupled, which is caused by the actor, and he is responsible for the effect. These effects are that, what can hurt creatures, which are also are living in this causal environment, and because causality is not corrupt, the actor will get a reply earlier or later.

If one is aware of this causality, then he avoids acting or is teaching the avoiding of acting, and is learning that peace is a state where no acting is, and that no acting hardly can create effects which hurts.

If this is true, then this may show, that there is no need to seek a god, but that there is a need to be aware as acting creature of the order of nature demonstrated by the example of the eternal and alocal laws of physics.

Volker

spurly

My reply would be a little bit different. It would go like this: we can not know what evil is, unless we have an absolute concept of what is righteous and good. thus without good, there would be no evil.

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

oriecat

I'd tell this kid to learn his Bible if he wants to be a god-thumper. The second line of the freakin' bible talks about the existence of darkness.

Kvalhion

Since good is a relative term, there can be no "absolute concept of what is righteous and good" because what is "righteous and good" is different from person to person. At best, you can define for you what you believe is "righteous and good" and thus derive your personal definition of evil from there.