Einstein solves the problem of evil

[Ouroboros]

You're missing the point.

I get the point.

We have to lie about people and things to justify our beliefs. That's the moral story to that video. It's not enough to have belief in God, we also must put bad reasoning in the mouths of famous people to make our beliefs sound valid. It's very human.

 

[Skwim]

They "tear apart" the proposition that it was a story about Einstein, but not the argument, which is what the thread is about.

You could have fooled me, because the title of the OP is "Einstein solves the problem of evil," putting Einstein front and center along with what he supposedly did: like so many of his other "solving" accomplishments, Einstein finally solved this one too!. Moreover, Gambit supports this with his comment;

"Einstein solves the problem of evil. He does this by explaining that evil is the privation of good."
​

All of which puts the focus on Einstein and what he did.
Of course what he might have said is important---might have been if he had actually said it---but as Gambit observed, "This is the standard Christian explanation." So this in itself isn't anything newsworthy, only that fact that Einstein is suppose to have said it.

Nope, the thread is about the fact that Einstein "said" this something, not the something itself. This something is merely "the standard Christian explanation."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you honestly believe your sarcasm somehow makes you look like a real adult? Maybe we can discuss something when you decide to act less childish.

LOL!

 

[Ouroboros]

Wouldn't a reasonable counter-argument be that "good" is equally relative?

I'd say so.

Or what we call "good and evil" isn't at all what is "good and evil" in God's view (if such a god exists).

 

[Ouroboros]

They "tear apart" the proposition that it was a story about Einstein, but not the argument, which is what the thread is about.

I think it's a little bit of both. Why post an argument that's wrongly attributed to Einstein to make a point about something that might be right?

 

[Desert Snake]

Doesn't make sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does make sense.

What we can see here is an example of evil. One kind of evil is to put words into a dead famous person's mouth. He can't defend himself, and we can make him say whatever we want. It's a wonderful example of evil dishonesty. This video proves evil by what it does, not what it says!

 

[Willamena]

....but it could be.
In fact, evil might not exist at all, using the proposal that you either have something or nothing.

By that same token, atheism (the absence of theism*) doesn't exist at all. The problem with that is that a thing can be defined by the absence of something else, as long as its in terms of that something else.

*according to some.

 

[Willamena]

This argument also poses another problem to people who believe in an omnipresent god. If god is omnipresent and omnibenevolent , then good can't ever be absent from anywhere.

Since abstracts have no locality, I shouldn't think it that much of a problem.

 

[Willamena]

You could have fooled me..

Guess so.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's a thought I had.

If evil is defined by absence of good, but good is not defined by its relationship to evil (good existing absolutely even if evil didn't), then how would someone define good without any reference to evil? If good is defined by itself, absolutely and non-relative in itself to evil, then good must be possible to define absolutely on its own. Yes, no?

 

[Ingledsva]

Evil as the absence of Good doesn't make any sense.
What the absence of good means ?
Not being good doesn't mean being evil.

I agree with you. Very good people commit crimes, small and large, in the heat of the moment.

Obviously Good wasn't missing, they acted on some momentary instinct, fear, etc.

*

 

[Willamena]

I think it's a little bit of both. Why post an argument that's wrongly attributed to Einstein to make a point about something that might be right?

That was addressed earlier as a "gimmick."

 

[Willamena]

Here's a thought I had.

If evil is defined by absence of good, but good is not defined by its relationship to evil (good existing absolutely even if evil didn't), then how would someone define good without any reference to evil? If good is defined by itself, absolutely and non-relative in itself to evil, then good must be possible to define absolutely on its own. Yes, no?

The absolute is defined in relation to itself (identity).

 

[Ingledsva]

Here's a thought I had.

If evil is defined by absence of good, but good is not defined by its relationship to evil (good existing absolutely even if evil didn't), then how would someone define good without any reference to evil? If good is defined by itself, absolutely and non-relative in itself to evil, then good must be possible to define absolutely on its own. Yes, no?

That is exactly what I was thinking.

It is just a re-working of the ancient idea of opposites needed for sentience.

*

 

[Ouroboros]

By that same token, atheism (the absence of theism*) doesn't exist at all. The problem with that is that a thing can be defined by the absence of something else, as long as its in terms of that something else.

Just like water is the absence of air.

Another thing I was thinking about regarding the "hot-cold" analogy--cold being the absence of heat--is that heat is really just motion. It's energy. Particles in extreme motion. The faster they go, the hotter it is. And when something goes cold, the energy is transferred or converted, it's never gone. (The fabulous laws of thermodynamics comes to mind, the one that's used to disprove evolution by anti-evolutionists. First law, I think it is in this case) So cold comes in one place at the expense of heat in another (hence heat-exchangers). The balance is always there though. The sum is the same.

 

[Ouroboros]

The absolute is defined in relation to itself (identity).

That doesn't make sense. How do you define good in relation to good? Good = good? It's nothing but a tautology then. Can you explain?

 

[Ouroboros]

That was addressed earlier as a "gimmick."

It's a gimmick that has gone around as an urban legend for many, many years. It only shows that evil exists with people who lies about other people to propagate their own ideas. So, yes, it proves evil by its very existence. The "gimmick" is showing both lying and stealing. Lying about Einstein, and stealing his good name and reputation.

On the other hand, if it's just a "gimmick" as a joke, then why are we even discussing the contents of the joke? Why did the panda go into the bar in the first place? Who cares. It's just a story!

By the way, I hate it when people do something wrong or say something nasty and then try to cover it over with "it was just a joke." No, it wasn't. This video was intended to persuade the viewers that "oh, Einstein said it. He was smart, so he must be right." It's dishonest. People have known this to be an untrue story for years. It's time that people stopped dishonoring Einstein like this.

 

[Willamena]

It's a gimmick that has gone around as an urban legend for many, many years.

Regardless, the gimmick isn't the topic.

On the other hand, if it's just a "gimmick" as a joke, then why are we even discussing the contents of the joke?

Case in point.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't make sense. How do you define good in relation to good? Good = good? It's nothing but a tautology then. Can you explain?

Good in relation to good is identity. That's what identity is.

A = A.