A fascinating concept, perfectly executed:
Hardly a relative theory.
Posted on 09/27/2009 3:38:59 PM PDT by NYer
It’s in German.
It has sub titles...and is worth watching!
I love to see professors get smoked but I have to post this food for thought.
I don’t need to get FLAMED for this:
“I form the light and CREATE darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.”
—Isaiah 45:7
Ausgezeichtnet.
No flaming necessary .... thank you for posting that line from Isaiah!
thanks....
i just sent this to my soon to be ex-wife...
According to Snopes there’s no evidence this exchange ever happened, it seems someone attributed it to Einstein to make a chain email story sound plausible.
Not to mention this:
“I form the light and CREATE darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.”
—Isaiah 45:7
I seem to recall that Einstein also said; “man will be free only when he is free of religion”. Maybe not exactly those words, but close to it. I see here a young school boy, not an old Mathematician/Scientist, he obvious changed his mind later on, after years of research??
Wow.
Did he really say that?
Well, the way I see things, the line of reasoning in the video is conflating scientific definitions with observed phenomena. Science may define darkness as the absence of light, but the fact still remains that the phenomena of darkness exists, or there would be no need to define it.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion.
Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
“I seem to recall that Einstein also said”
In the past few decades, such a cloud of disinformation has been created with regard to what Einstein did or did not say, that I distrust any quotation that does not antedate 1970. And by “antedate,” I mean that a quotation was widely known and attributed to Einstein prior to 1970.
I am pretty well convinced that the quotations purporting to show that Einstein was either a socialist or an atheist are distortions or outright fabrications.
This opinion is buttressed by dsc’s first law of dealing with leftards: All leftists lie all the time. This is only to be expected, as all leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the mass murders of Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot, is of and from Satan. It is a contaminant in the human cognosphere, not a natural component of it.
And Satan, as we know, is the father of lies. How could his minions and useful idiots be anything other than liars?
No flaming necessary; the young tyke had a great answer.
“the fact still remains that the phenomena of darkness exists, or there would be no need to define it.”
The boy was not arguing God’s existence, but God’s nature. The professor said that the existence of evil showed that God is evil. The boy rebutted that logic by giving examples of two things that are not positive forces in their own right, but are rather only the absence of other forces. He then said that the existence of evil is just such a thing.
Rather than demonstrating that God is evil, therefore, the existence of evil is merely the manifestation of God’s absence.
(This is a proposition to which I do not subscribe, by the way. The boy’s argument does not suffice to rebut the professor’s assertion; that must be done on other grounds.)
It’s easy to do a search on bible passages and get the bible to say what you want it to say by taking passages out of context and by not having an understanding of the bible in the first place.
Be careful what you attribute to God without wisdom.
Jesus said, “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Pretty powerful stuff too.
My point was that just because something can be defined as merely the absence of something else, doesn’t make the thing you are defining any less real. Since, as the quote from Isaiah that posted demonstrates, God has taken credit for not only creating light, but also darkness, even if it is only the absence of light. He created the phenomena of the presence as well as the phenomena of the absence, and both are equally “real” phenomena, no matter how you define them.
You are right that the boy’s argument doesn’t really rebut the professor’s assertion. Even if evil is only the absence of God from our hearts, an omniscient God must have known that condition would arise if he created beings with the freedom to choose to turn away from him. So even if the boy can successfully argue that God didn’t created the absence, the professor could reply that God created the opportunity for the absence, knowing full well that the absence would necessarily occur.
The Bengals beat Pittsburgh. That’s all the proof I need.
“My point was that just because something can be defined as merely the absence of something else, doesn’t make the thing you are defining any less real.”
Actually, it does.
So, since darkness is not real, I guess you don’t turn on your headlights when you drive, eh?
This is on YouTube....read the comments...
“So, since darkness is not real, I guess you don’t turn on your headlights when you drive, eh?”
I presume you mean at night.
Given the absence of light, I use my headlights to provide it.
If the phenomena of darkness is not real, but merely the absence of light, why do you require headlights to mitigate an imaginary condition?
“If the phenomena of darkness is not real, but merely the absence of light, why do you require headlights to mitigate an imaginary condition?”
The absence of light is not imaginary. It really is absent.
So there seems to be two possibilities - Everything came from something -OR - Everything came from nothing.
If there is no God, then why believe anything at all?
It might seem odd that the very characteristics which science defines as First Cause are the same as what theists have been describing as years as God but that is how it is.
Great video. It makes an interesting and thoughtful point.
Your previous statement implied that darkness, being defined by the absence of light, is therefore less real than light. If the abscence of light is real, then darkness, which is a description of that condition is real as well, eh?
Merkwurdige!
That little tyke would’ve been expelled in today’s public schools.
“I form the light and CREATE darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.”
—Isaiah 45:7
Which is what the video is supporting. Note that Isaiah 45:7 does not say this:
“I form the darkness and CREATE light, I bring disaster and create prosperity; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.”
“Your previous statement implied that darkness, being defined by the absence of light, is therefore less real than light. If the abscence of light is real, then darkness, which is a description of that condition is real as well, eh?”
No. Doesn’t follow at all.
Try this: try starting with the presumption that the absence of a thing is not a thing, and figure out why that is true. Then you can go back to the position that the absense of a thing is a thing, and possibly with the new insight figure out why that proposition is false.
Perhaps but odds favor him being put on Ritalin to keep him seated and quiet.
What an entertaining video! I believe St. Augustine defined “Evil” as ‘privatio boni’, i.e. absence/privation of Good. According to scholastic philosophy a ‘privatio’ can be predicated only of something which by nature exists. For example ‘blindness’ may be predicated of a man because it is in man’s nature to see. Since a stone cannot see, it’s lack of sight is not a ‘privatio’ because it is not in a stone’s nature to see. Therefore Evil may be predicated of creation in general as a ‘privatio’ because the transcendental nature of creation is Good, as well as True and One.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Darkness is quite a real phenomena, regardless of whether you define it by the absence of something else.
It’s easy to do a search on bible passages and get the bible to say what you want it to say by taking passages out of context and by not having an understanding of the bible in the first place.
Be careful what you attribute to God without wisdom.
I’m sorry you don’t get it. The Bible clearly says this. Just because you think I’m using this to discredit the Bible shows your lack of wisdom.
You can split hairs all day long; it’s summed up with, “..I, the LORD, DO ALL THESE THINGS.”
Well, the way I see things, the line of reasoning in the video is conflating scientific definitions with observed phenomena. Science may define darkness as the absence of light, but the fact still remains that the phenomena of darkness exists, or there would be no need to define it.
EXACTLY!
That is not spitting hairs. That is exactly how the video puts it, which is the whole basis of the video. To call that spitting hairs shows you just don’t get it.
Darkness exists because light was created (in one way or another).
Which is the whole point of the video that you are moving away from...
The teacher says that God is evil because evil exists. The point the video is making is that evil exists but that does not mean God is evil.
To say otherwise is like saying light is darkness. Are you saying light is darkness? I don’t think so, therefor because there is evil that does not mean God is evil.
“Darkness exists because light was created (in one way or another).”
-
Note that Isaiah 45:7 does not say this:
“I form the light WHICH CREATES darkness, I bring prosperity WHICH CREATES disaster; I, the LORD, do THINGS which results in an evil opposite.”
“The point the video is making is that evil exists but that does not mean God is evil.”
I agree with that point. The point the teacher makes is a stupid one, whether or not God created something that was evil, does not mean he is evil—it means he’s omniscient.
I think Boogieman said it best:
“...the line of reasoning in the video is conflating scientific definitions with observed phenomena. Science may define darkness as the absence of light, but the fact still remains that the phenomena of darkness exists, or there would be no need to define it.”
Your previous statement implied that darkness, being defined by the absence of light, is therefore less real than light. If the abscence of light is real, then darkness, which is a description of that condition is real as well, eh?
People are just trying to hold on to this video, plain and simple. The professors premise and the rebuttal put god in a very SMALL box IMHO.
“I form the light. I create darkness. I bring prosperity. I create disaster. I, the LORD, do ALL these things.”
The second is clearly a result of the first. That is why it is written in relation and in the same structure.
“The point the teacher makes is a stupid one, whether or not God created something that was evil, does not mean he is evil—it means he’s omniscient.”
Obviously I can’t speak for God but since we are having this discussion I would say that God in his infinite wisdom knew that when he created light and it was good, that there would be darkness and also evil as a result.
You see - as a result. Just like Isaiah 45:7 tells us. First comes the good and following comes the bad. In the same structure, for a reason.
positive - negative, positive - negative
Look at it this way:
If all there was is good with no evil then good would flourish and prosper forever and ever. Sounds like heaven doesn’t it?
If all there was is evil with no good then evil would torment itself (hell) and be stagnant.
So evil needs good for a purpose but good does not need evil.
If God created evil like he created good (light,life,etc), then evil would be as powerful as good. Evil is not as powerful as good because evil NEEDS to corrupt good (sin).
We can agree that what the teacher said is incorrect, but there is an important reason why he is incorrect and it is important to understand it. Otherwise, according to the teacher, it could be misunderstood that evil would ultimately prevail and consume everything including God and his Kingdom of Heaven.
And that is not the case - at least not in my Bible!
But anyway - if i have not convinced you by now then we just simply disagree.
I think we both agree that God is in complete control, and leave it at that.
I for one think his consciousness is BEYOND good and evil, and feel that it’s not a contradiction of the bible when someone interprets the contended scripture as him creating evil.
God is ALL there is IMO, everything else is just form.
“In Christ were created ALL things in heaven and on earth
EVERYTHING visible and everything INVISIBLE.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in UNITY.” —Col. 1-15-17
Darkness seems exist when the number of photons in a given area are diffused. When I was in Vietnam we used a “Starlight Scope” which amplified the available photons to give a greenish image of the terrain, and we were thus able to pick off a lot of VC and NVA who otherwise would have gotten away.
I also think there is no evil without a human (or other intelligence somewhere) mind to produce and process it. Or anyway, it can’t be demonstrated without mind.
Goodness on the other hand is the province of God who made a universe in which we live and operate in....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.