Need Some Help Debunking This

[Vigile]

An old friend, a guy who usually mails me disgusting racist, et al emails, mailed me this tripe and I'd like mail back a response that stops this myth dead in its tracks. First of all I know this was not Einstein. I can smell an urban myth when I see one. I'm hoping that some here can offer a good response to this one because while I could probably debunk this, I'm not confident I can do so convincingly. TIA

 

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning

challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything

that exists?"

 

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

 

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

 

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

 

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created

evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our

works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

 

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's

hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself,

boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the

Christian faith was a myth.

 

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question,

professor?"

 

"Of course," replied the professor.

 

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

 

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never

been cold?"

 

The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man

replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of

physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.

 

Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits

energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.

Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter

becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does

not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have

no heat."

 

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

 

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

 

The student replied, "Once again, you are wrong, sir, darkness does not

exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we

can study but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break

white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each

color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break

into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a

certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this

correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when

there is no light present."

 

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

 

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already

said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's

inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence

everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but

evil.

 

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it

does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God."

It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to

describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the

result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his

heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the

darkness that comes when there is no light."

 

The professor sat down.

 

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein. A true story.

[nick5]

I've heard this story before except it wasn't with albert einstein... it was probably added in.

[Asimov]

check it out on snopes...they have a debunking there.

 

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[Ouroboros]

I don't think Albert Einstein was a professional apologetics in his young age. Btw he did very poorly in school.

 

But the question from this "clever" argument is that evil is the absence of God, but God is everything, so how can something exists outside everyting that exists? Can God be absent if he is omnipresent? That's a contradiction that begs an explanation. May he be Einstein or not.

[Taphophilia]

I don't think Albert Einstein was a professional apologetics in his young age. Btw he did very poorly in school.

 

But the question from this "clever" argument is that evil is the absence of God, but God is everything, so how can something exists outside everyting that exists? Can God be absent if he is omnipresent? That's a contradiction that begs an explanation. May he be Einstein or not.

 

I thought God created evil. How could god create something that is the absence of himself?

It's true that Einstein did so poorly in school he was labled slow and was not admitted into college. He instead went to a technical school. He found work as a clerk in a Swiss patent office where he dabled with physics. He wrote a paper on some of his theories and it catapolted him to academic fame.

[Ouroboros]

I thought God created evil. How could god create something that is the absence of himself?

It's true that Einstein did so poorly in school he was labled slow and was not admitted into college. He instead went to a technical school. He found work as a clerk in a Swiss patent office where he dabled with physics. He wrote a paper on some of his theories and it catapolted him to academic fame.

And he didn't write the papers alone. He was bad in mathematics, so he took help to figure out the formulas. (at least that's what I remember from some reading I did years ago. Don't remember who helped him though.)

 

And my argument about evil was based on the "students" explanation. Einstein supposedly said "Evil is absence of God" and I just played along with that argument. Which is contradictory to the theological idea that God is omnipresent. I could have understood "Evil is absence of Good", because at least "good" doesn't have the omnipresent attribute. And really, if God is the supposed "First Cause", then he is the first cause for evil too. Simple as that.

[Amethyst]

I've seen this before but without Einstein, too.

 

Evil is relative and NOT the absence of anything. It is how society judges one's actions, and every society on earth has its own definition of good and evil. Granted, because of the nature of technology and travel, those definitions are very similar. But not identical.

 

Ancient cultures also had morality long before Christianity. The Golden Rule is not solely the property of the Christians, even though they claim it as such. Buddhism, for example, had it long before the Bible was written. And philosophers like Socrates tackled ethical issues in their writings.

 

Also, one would think that the professor would be able to debunk such an argument and wouldn't just give up like that.

[Ouroboros]

And you bring up a different side Amethyst. Good vs Evil is a sliding scale, not absolutes. If the "darkness" vs "light" comparison have any validity, that means there is shades of darkness. Not everything is black and white in light and shade. Same thing with heat vs cold. Same thing goes for evil, some things are in between and can't be said to be evil nor good. The argument only validates relative moral rather than absolute moral.

 

Note: Tips to Christians, don't use allegories that can be interpreted in a way detrimentally to what you believe.

[Vigile]

I don't think Albert Einstein was a professional apologetics in his young age. Btw he did very poorly in school.

 

But the question from this "clever" argument is that evil is the absence of God, but God is everything, so how can something exists outside everyting that exists? Can God be absent if he is omnipresent? That's a contradiction that begs an explanation. May he be Einstein or not.

 

Thanks Hans! This is the kind of zinger I need to send to this smart, but lazy-brained friend of mine.

[Vigile]

Here's my response. As you can see, I borrowed from most of you guys. Thanks!

 

 

Christians should really stop trying to "prove" their faith. Isn't faith the absence of proof? From what I read here faith also equals the absence of reason and just plain common sense.

 

The student contends that evil is the absence of god. I would argue that this student also holds the belief that god is omnipresent. Can god be absent if he is omnipresent? Besides, evil is relative and NOT the absence of anything. It is how society judges one's actions, and every society on earth has its own definition of good and evil. Good vs Evil are measured on a sliding scale, not by absolutes (I can give plenty of examples for those who may disagree).

 

The apologist further discredits him/herself by contending that the student was Einstein. Einstein never attended college. In fact Einstein did so poorly in school he was labeled slow and was not admitted into college. He instead went to a technical school. He found work as a clerk in a Swiss patent office where he dabbled with physics. He wrote a paper on some of his theories and it catapulted him to academic fame.

 

Here's a Snopes debunking of the whole article: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[Kuroikaze]

A college profeser, with a PHD in anything, would not have fallen for those questions about cold and darkness.

[Ouroboros]

Well put Vigile. Easy to read and to the point.

 

 

Kuro, I agree. I would have seen through the students attempts to trick me, and I'm not even educated. Heck, I bet the majority on this site have a higher degree than I do. And I can see through people trying to lay a snare like that. Well, I did work as a teacher in high-school for a while, maybe that's why... life experience...

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've seen this before but without Einstein, too.

 

Evil is relative and NOT the absence of anything.

 

I agree with this, Amethyst. For a different spin from your cultural argument:

 

Plotinus, father of Neo-Platonism, lived in early third century A.D. He tackled this problem by saying that evil is not a substance, but rather the privation of good that a substance should have by nature. An example is a blind eye. Blindness is not an substance; the eye is a substance. Blindness is the privation of the natural function of the eye. The blind eye still exists and is good insofar as it exists. Blood flows through it, etc. etc. Its "evil" is the gap between its natural function and its actual inability to exercise that function.

 

The thing about Neo-Platonism is that it resisted making its highest principle the creator of matter. Neo-Platonists multiplied entities in "emanations" from the One. They had a sort of trinity, though not all three members were equal: the One, Mind, and Soul. Nature is even below Soul. So, they could get away with saying that their highest principle was not the cause of any of the privations that we name "evils." The creator of the material world was an entity further down the scale of being.

 

Not so the Christians. Augustine took over the neo-Platonist argument about evil's not tainting God because he had been a neo-Platonist before he converted to Christianity. He liked their take on evil because he was in controversy with Manicheans, who taught that there are two principles: a good god and an evil god. Augustine wanted the christian God to be omnipotent, so there could be no rival second principle. To explain evil, he had recourse to the "evil=privation of good" argument. That does not square, though, with the christian insistence that God is the first cause. So the christian must admit that God is the first cause in the chain of events that leads to an event in the world. Just as "shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it?" so God is the cause of the events that result in someone's eye being unable to see. Otherwise, the christian has to give up the claim that God is omnipotent - a claim enshrined in the Nicene Creed, which was already formulated before Augustine.

 

I think the first cause doctrine refutes the "evil is privation so God isn't responsible for it" argument. Christians can't have it both ways. Typical of their religion's schizophrenia. When someone can't take the cognitive dissonance anymore and abandons the religion, they usually fall back on saying the person loves sin more than God, is blinded by sin, blah blah blah.

 

check it out on snopes...they have a debunking there.

 

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

 

hey, Asimov, I checked out this link, pretty good. i notice some other stories like the Einstein story. One is where a professor dares God to knock him off the platform within 15 minutes, and finally a marine - or a Navy Seal, depending on the variant of the story - goes up and knocks the professor off. "God was busy so He sent me," etc.

 

I notice that the story really expresses a huge truth about the way christianity works. The marine/seal does not formulate an argument to refute the professor in discussion. The christian soldier instead has recourse to violence, which stops all discussion. Who knows how much damage is done to the professor.

 

Isn't that the way dogmatic religion functions?

 

Excellent urban myth to teach the nature of christianity.

[Vixentrox]

If evil is the absence of god, then god is not omni-present.

[quicksand]

So wait... is cold and darkness also the absense of God? Following the argument above you would have to conclude that.

 

A very weak analogy this is.

[Ouroboros]

I think the reversed can be argued as well.

 

Absolute Evil exists, and Good is only abscence of Evil.

 

---

 

I think that kind of thinking have flaws.

 

For instance, Minus is not the absence of Plus.

 

Polarities exists, but the Good v Evil isn't one of them (IMO).

[Dhampir]

Also, doesn't the idea of 'presence' and 'absence' imply opposites? That would mean that the entire argument about there being no such thing as darkness and cold incorrect.

 

Additionally, if God is omni-present, then either there is no evil, or, following the above logic, the term omni-present is not applicable to god, if in fact evil is the absence of god, according to the student's definition of evil.

[quicksand]

I think the reversed can be argued as well.

 

Absolute Evil exists, and Good is only abscence of Evil.

 

---

 

I think that kind of thinking have flaws.

 

For instance, Minus is not the absence of Plus.

 

Polarities exists, but the Good v Evil isn't one of them (IMO).

Hmm.. Han. Is the plus or minus sign then, the one without god? Just a bit confused on that point.

[Ouroboros]

To quote GIR: I doooon't know...

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I don't think Albert Einstein was a professional apologetics in his young age. Btw he did very poorly in school.

 

But the question from this "clever" argument is that evil is the absence of God, but God is everything, so how can something exists outside everyting that exists? Can God be absent if he is omnipresent? That's a contradiction that begs an explanation. May he be Einstein or not.

 

Thanks Hans! This is the kind of zinger I need to send to this smart, but lazy-brained friend of mine.

 

 

Maybe where evil is present God is too chicken shit to show up.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe where evil is present God is too chicken shit to show up.

Would that explain the chicken or egg problem? God was the chicken... hmm...

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

 

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

 

The student replied, "Once again, you are wrong, sir, darkness does not

exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we

can study but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break

white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each

color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break

into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a

certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this

correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when

there is no light present."

 

 

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein. A true story.

 

The argument in this Einstein urban legend argues too much to help the god of the bible. Isaiah 45:7 says that God created light and darkness. So the christian can't claim that darkness does not exist, when the bible says God created it. The bible clearly gives God the originative responsibility for darkness. It also gives God the originative responsibility for evil in verses that have been quoted above. To say that God didn't create evil because evil is only a privation, therefore doesn't exist, obligates the believer also to say that God didn't create darkness, in violation of the bible's clear words. Either the believer has to drop a close reading of it or has to admit that God created evil.

[nick5]

But you know what's funny, even IF cold and darkness are the absence of light and heat, they're still states that exist and therefore... well.. exist.

What a stupid story.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

But you know what's funny, even IF cold and darkness are the absence of light and heat, they're still states that exist and therefore... well.. exist.

What a stupid story.

 

Cold and darkness are not the absence of light and heat, they are different states of energy. Energy exists in both states but at different levels. The analogy would assume a void, but there are no voids in our universe.

[nick5]

I know, I was saying IF it was true... they'd still be things that exist