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.
“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.)
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!