# Is evil just the absence of good, cold just the absence of heat? Video making rounds.



## Augusta

This video is making the rounds on FB with my arminian friends. Are these suppositions that Einstein espoused? The video says that it is a commercial in the Republic of Macedonia, by the Ministry of Education and Science. It is to promote education. It sounds good but does it pass muster?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw]YouTube - "Does God exist?" -- Social campaign on education (TV commerc[/ame]


----------



## smhbbag

I look forward to reading the responses of others, but I am wondering how evil is the absence of something.

Sin/Evil is much more than the absence of God or His love - it is the presence of something that is actively set against Him. That, by definition it seems, could not be described merely as an 'absence.'

This very much betrays Arminianism - wicked men are not simply those unredeemed by God who would love Him very much if properly introduced. They know Him, reject Him, and fight him with all their hearts, souls, minds and strength. 

That is to say that evil includes, in some sense, the lack that he asserts. But it is certainly not limited to it.

If evil wars against God (and it does), then this is as much nonsense as saying terrorism does not exist - there is only a lack of love for the targeted city/people. Wars cannot be accounted for by merely noting a lack of harmony.


----------



## Zenas

If evil is sin, 
and sin is disobediance to God's law, 
then evil is disobediance to God's law. 

If good is righteousness,
and righteousness is obedience to God's law,
then good is obedience to God's law. 

If the propositions are true, then one could say, logically at least, that evil is the absence of good because evil is an absence of obedience, which equates to good.


----------



## VictorBravo

I probably should watch the video, but I have a bad connection right now. But it's pretty clear that evil is not the mere absence of good. The Garden of Eden had an abundance of good; evil was introduced.

On to the more interesting question:

"Is . . . cold just the absence of heat?"

Anybody who has spent a winter or two in the Northern Great Plains, especially during a spell of minus 40 or minus 50, knows that cold is an active agent. It isn't the absence of something--it tries to creep in and get you. It presses everywhere. 

I used to ask my physicist friends to come help with calving in February and then tell me cold is just a lack of heat. . . .


----------



## Philip

I would say that evil is not merely the absence of goodness: it is a twisting of what is good and a turning it against its original purpose. Thus reason is turned toward rebellion, a healthy sense of self-worth becomes pride, marital relations become perversions. I can't name a single sin that is not, in the end, a perversion of something good.


----------



## Guido's Brother

This concept has made the rounds on the Internet before in written form. It's nothing new. 

BTW, I didn't know that they spoke German in Macedonia.


----------



## Augusta

Guido's Brother said:


> This concept has made the rounds on the Internet before in written form. It's nothing new.
> 
> BTW, I didn't know that they spoke German in Macedonia.




The video portrays Einstein who was German.


----------



## au5t1n

Cold is the absence of thermal energy, not heat. Individual particles of matter have kinetic energy and are bouncing around (or wiggling around for solids), and that is thermal energy. Cold is indeed what we call having less of this energy. Technically, heat is the transfer of thermal energy and so is not the same thing as thermal energy, so cold is not the absence of *heat*.

It seems to me that comparing this to evil and good without any proof that good and evil have a similar relationship as cold and hot is stupid. You could compare any pair of opposites to any other pair of opposites, and use that to prove all manner of ridiculous things.


----------



## Augusta

Would the earth have been called cold or dark or void before the heat, light, and stuff came along? Void means empty right? Out of nothing God created all these things.


----------



## Sonoftheday

I found the video very nonsensical.

Firstly what is meant by God's Love in the statement.
"God did not create evil, evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love in his heart"

Secondly it says before that.
"Evil does not exist"

If evil does not exist then it cannot be punished.


----------



## Augusta

Sonoftheday said:


> I found the video very nonsensical.
> 
> Firstly what is meant by God's Love in the statement.
> "God did not create evil, evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love in his heart"
> 
> Secondly it says before that.
> "Evil does not exist"
> 
> If evil does not exist then it cannot be punished.



Does it only exist when manifested in human agents? Does it exist outside of a being, angelic or human, manifesting it? Is it eternal or created?


----------



## Prufrock

We generally speak of evil as a privation, not (in its strict sense) as a contrary. But the "type" of privation is not a simple privation, but carries a few subtle nuances. If we let Aquinas speak here from his treatise _De malo_:
But things of which one is in accord with nature, and the other a departure from nature, are opposed as possession and privation of a quality, not, properly speaking, as contraries. And there are two kinds of privation: one, indeed, that consists in the privation of existing (e.g., death and blindness), and one that consists in the process inducing privation (e.g., sickness, which is a process inducing death...). And we sometimes call the latter kind of privations contraries, since they still retain part of that of which they are being deprived, and it is in this way that we call evil a contrary, since it remains partially good and is not deprived of all good. (_On Evil, trans. Richard Regan_)​This basic Thomistic conception is absorbed into and invigorated by Reformed thought. We are probably all familiar with the words of the catechism: 
What is sin?
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.​Sin, in other words, is a lack of rectitude as defined by the law, a want of conformity to the law; or, as we would say, the formal cause of sin is _anomia_, or lawlessness. 

It goes beyond, however, a _simple_ privation, and is such an one as actively corrupts its subject, "by which not only is the due rectitude taken away, but also an undue unrectitude and depraved quality laid down, infecting all the faculties (_Turretin, Insitutes, IX.1.V; see whole discussion in topic 9, question 1)"_. As he further clarifies, any positive being which is attributed to sin can be absolutely or physically, but only logically and ethically.


----------



## D. Paul

We have a Worldview class at church and this very argument has been raised, "Evil is the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light". My unasked question was "Are we speaking of evil as wickedness and iniquity or any event that would cause harm to human beings in some way?" People will say that harm to infants is "evil" for example.

The comments here are very helpful to me. *Leave it to the PB*!

Evil was introduced (thank you victorbravo), evil twists and distorts good (thanks to p.f. pugh), evil is actively set against God (thanks smhbbag) and evil /good does not have the same relationship as hot/cold (thanks austinww). I think I shall quote you all come next class!

-----Added 9/25/2009 at 10:22:11 EST-----

...and thanks to you, Prufrock, for your Turretin quote. Oh, the mind of that man...


----------



## Sonoftheday

Augusta said:


> Sonoftheday said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the video very nonsensical.
> 
> Firstly what is meant by God's Love in the statement.
> "God did not create evil, evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love in his heart"
> 
> Secondly it says before that.
> "Evil does not exist"
> 
> If evil does not exist then it cannot be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it only exist when manifested in human agents? Does it exist outside of a being, angelic or human, manifesting it? Is it eternal or created?
Click to expand...

I see how I misstated my statement. I meant that if Evil does not exist then people cannot be punished for it. 

To go any further than to clarify my statement would just be my random bablings. I am not a philosopher and the so called "problem of evil" has never been a problem for me so I have not spent much time thinking on every aspect of it. I just hold that God can be good and sovereign and allow, even decree evil, to occur because it serves a greater Good His glory. Other than that I dont think about it nor really care to spend much time on it. I dont mean to sound to harsh towards you or any others searching for answers in this area or who enjoy discussions in this area it is just not a topic that particularly interests me.


----------



## KMK

I have heard this argument from hyperpreterists. I am wondering if this understanding is necessary for their paradigm. Or maybe they just spend too much time on the internet?


----------



## Augusta

Sonoftheday said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonoftheday said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found the video very nonsensical.
> 
> Firstly what is meant by God's Love in the statement.
> "God did not create evil, evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love in his heart"
> 
> Secondly it says before that.
> "Evil does not exist"
> 
> If evil does not exist then it cannot be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it only exist when manifested in human agents? Does it exist outside of a being, angelic or human, manifesting it? Is it eternal or created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see how I misstated my statement. I meant that if Evil does not exist then people cannot be punished for it.
> 
> To go any further than to clarify my statement would just be my random bablings. I am not a philosopher and the so called "problem of evil" has never been a problem for me so I have not spent much time thinking on every aspect of it. I just hold that God can be good and sovereign and allow, even decree evil, to occur because it serves a greater Good His glory. Other than that I dont think about it nor really care to spend much time on it. I dont mean to sound to harsh towards you or any others searching for answers in this area or who enjoy discussions in this area it is just not a topic that particularly interests me.
Click to expand...


Bryan, I am no philosopher either. I am just faking it and trying to pick up what I can along the way. Shhh don't tell anyone.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Jonathan Edwards would totally agree with this video. 

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY: Essay

(Haven't read this yet, but after much disagreeing with the video in a hostile manner, I gave it some thought and realized that it makes so much sense. You can believe this, and it does not go against God's sovereignty one wink. Mentioned this to my husband and he recommended this essay. I'm going to read it tomorrow)


----------



## py3ak

Dorothy Sayers, _The Mind of the Maker_, has some stimulating reflections on the matter:

From the chapter, _Maker of All Things—Maker of Ill Things_


> So long as Not-Being remains negative and inactive, it produces no particular effects, harmful or otherwise. But if Not-Hamlet becomes associated with consciousness and will, we get something which is not merely Not-Hamlet: we get Anti-Hamlet. Someone has become aware of his Not-Hamletness, and this awareness becomes a center of will and of activity. The creative will, free and active like God, is able to will Not-Being into Being, and thus produce an Evil which is no longer negative but positive. This, according to the ancient myth of the Fall, is what happened to Men. They desired to be "as gods, knowing good and evil." God, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, knows Evil "by simple intelligence"—that is, in the category of Not-Being. But men, not being pure intelligence, but created within a space-time framework, could not "know" Evil as Not-Being—they could "know" it only by experience; that is, by association of their wills with it and so calling it into active Being.
> 
> [What must be done with evil is to "take its evil Power and turn it into active good. ...as it were, absorb the Evil in the anti-Hamlet and transmute it into an entirely new form of Good. This is a creative act, and it is the only kind of act that will actually turn positive Evil into positive Good." But it is important to add for clarity, "We must not, that is, try to behave as though the Fall had never occurred nor yet say that the Fall was a Good Thing in itself. But we may redeem the Fall by a creative act." It follows]
> That, according to Christian doctrine, is the way that God behaved, and the only way in which we can behave if we want to be "as gods." The Fall had taken place and Evil had been called into active existence; the only way to transmute Evil into Good was to redeem it by creation.
> [And as "Problem Picture" goes on to explain, viewing life analytically, as a series of problems requiring solution, is ultimately inadequate. Detective fiction can treat a problem, only because it excludes everything irrelevant to the problem, and everything insoluble according to the terms of the problem. When we approach life analytically, as problem requiring solution, we try to exclude what will not fit into that model, and it is little wonder our solutions are inadequate. The solution to this problem (!) is to cease with the analytical model, and view life as the material of a new creation. Not "how can I fix this?" but "what can be made from this?" is the question to ask, because evil can only be redeemed by new creation.]



(Comments in brackets are my way of avoid excessive typing)


----------



## Megan Mozart

Ok, so I read AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY: Essay
It's Jonathan Edwards (excerpt from The Freedom of the Will) and it really helped me understand this subject.

The video does sound like it is an affront to God's sovereignty, and it might be trying to be. But if you just think about its idea alone, it's really just saying that God didn't _cause_ sin, which isn't the same as _ordaining_ sin. He ordained it, but he didn't cause it. 

Now, if the video is trying to say that God isn't sovereign over the entry of sin into the world, it's using means that are inconsistent with this notion.


----------

