Great. Evil does not exist. Wait, actually it does. Therefore my argument is a red herring.

What a bunch of crap.

If God is everywhere how could anything or any place be absent from him?

Here is a real Einstein quote:

In regards to the OP, he's right that cold and darkness are not tangible things. However, neither are good and evil. Neither one is tangible. For the OP to make any sense, "good" would have to be tangible while evil is not. They are simply ways of describing actions, just like "boring/fun, or long/short, etc."

"That's not frostbite, junior. That's absence of heat-bite, ldo."

Knew it was fake just by the bad setup and payoff. Aren't fake religious stories the best? I hear they have whole books of them and they consider them holy.

You cant expect OP to answer this...what is he, Einstein?

by the same logic, he must be good, because he created good. so he must be both good and evil. the statement doesn't really mean anything.

and anyway, if i create deliciousness (in the form of a sandwich) that doesn't make me delicious. if i allow my girlfriend to curl her hair in my bathroom (and i could easily prevent her) that doesn't make me a hair-curler. you are presuming that creating/allowing evil is necessarily an evil act.

it would be a somewhat less annoying argument to say "if god exists (and is blah blah blah), he must not be 'all-good' "

FMFYP.

yes, ok. i think that one's fair

The argument is a refutation to the position that God is omnibenovelent. A God that all-good, all-loving, etc cannot be, by definition, partly-evil. I don't think you will find anyone arguing that God cannot be part good part evil. You will find theists arguing that he is all good though.

This is a strawman. If you created deliciousness, then it follows that you are not evil because deliciousness does not cause evilness. The creation of evilness, implies you are evil because it necessarily causes evilness.

Creating evil is not necessarily an evil act. If you were forced to create evil, then you are not the one who is responsible. Since God is the prime force and since he is omnipotent and has the capability not to create evil, he is ultimately responsible for evil, and is therefore (part) evil for creating evil.

i have read a good deal about einstein, this kabbalah stuff never came up. einstein rejected all formal religion explicitly. einstein never claimed to have proof of god, though he did believe in an underlying unity in the universe, spinoza's god. please do your research before you spout off this bs.

Sigh, so many small people in one place.

Keep searching for your answers prime, if you stay positive things will make sense again.

Yea, cause what you say makes a whole lot of sense. Take your smugness elsewhere, or at least couple it with a coherent point.

serious question: how do you decide which words to capitalize?

WTF, I spelled Bill Maher wrong.

My points are coherent enough for the people who understand them.

I get the point that you are trying to call me dumb or non perceptive. But I don't think you get the point that, since you haven't supported that conclusion, you're not really making a point.

I haven't said a thing about you.

It seemed that way given your high and mighty attitude, but I suppose I could have misinterpreted what you were saying.

This is a level right? You actually thought posting that silly made up story would start an intelligent debate? Really?

Really?

Internet person believes chain email. Read all about it!

so you are claiming that you "watched" einstein participate in these kabbalah rituals? even though he publicly and explicitly decried the religion of man? of course i should trust you and random conspiracy theorists over biographers who spend years researching personal information from einstein's life. i don't know why i get lured into debates with people who make baseless statements and use flimsy logic to justify it.

True of all the great minds, like you, Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite.

Hardly something to aspire to. I'd prefer coherence to those who abhor them.