Evil gets reified and has different meanings to different people. Some people talk about tsunamis as evil. Certainly tsunamis can't actually be morally evil since they are not sentient beings. So as with any argument, we need to define our terms.
The student tries to explain that evil is the absence of God. This then presents goodness or "God's love" in a concrete way, as if goodness is some holy mist floating throughout the universe. This view creates all kinds of logical problems like the ones previously raised. All Christians are said to sin yet are suppose to also have God's love present in their heart.
So to sum up the story: 'We can't say what evil is, we just know it's not God.(...so God isn't evil)'
The student tries to explain that evil is the absence of God. This then presents goodness or "God's love" in a concrete way, as if goodness is some holy mist floating throughout the universe. This view creates all kinds of logical problems like the ones previously raised. All Christians are said to sin yet are suppose to also have God's love present in their heart.
Again this is ambiguous, what result is he talking about? The story equates evil to lack of light or heat(aka energy). Do you know what results you see in the total absence of energy? You don't, there are none.Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.
So to sum up the story: 'We can't say what evil is, we just know it's not God.(...so God isn't evil)'
