But when speaking about the existence of a God and the opposite of goodness (sin and evil) I don't think we should get bogged down in technical terms like "hot" and "cold". It's not the exact scientific meaning of "hot" and "cold" that matters, but rather the point was a symbolic reference to the relationship between hot and cold. So your argument is valid I must say, but it side-steps the message of the student's argument: evil doesn't exist, God exists and in his absence you'll find sin. Energy exists, and in its absence you find a void (cold and dark).

So did God create evil? Well getting away from scientific definitions, it can be shown with what I think to be a witty argument but perhaps not scientific, that God is not evil. It still can't be proven, and can be debated forever, but I thought the point was pretty well driven home.

Good post Mike.

• and what could be more important than that? - whomi - May 29, 2003 - 19:40 UTC
  • Mike, I have to give you credit - stormcrow - May 30, 2003 - 04:00 UTC
    • As far as I'm concerned, - smartguy - May 30, 2003 - 17:46 UTC
      • I haven't changed my assumptions but I'm learning - whomi - May 30, 2003 - 18:13 UTC