No, i didnlt imply it. I said it outright.
He made a claim that evil is the absence of good. Akay, fine
But...he made that claim based on a comparision that ''just as cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light.''
Well, we know what and why heat makes cold water huncold. We test it and we observe it and we record the data. And we know what\ makes the darkness undark. We observe what does it and how it does it. We then record the data and make our conclusion.
These latter two things which he compared are provable because they are observable and testable. He cannot make the former claim by way of comparison until he shares with us his correlative observation and his data which deems his conclusion comparable.
Do you see what I'm saying here, buttercup?
I want to make sure I have your position correct. You're claiming that morality is not something that can be scientifically tested and observed? If so, then I agree. Morality is outside the realm of science. However that doesn't mean we can't even discuss it. There are certain things that are not scientific matters, but we can still know and learn about them, in a different way.
And thats not even counting his main claim. The very first thing he said. He ran you people in a compete circle with nothing to offer in support of his claim except blind claim based on a non-negotiable comparison.
Jiminy crickets.
What main claim? That God did not create evil? I agree with that. Evil is not a thing, in and of itself. You can't have evil without good. There needs to be a frame of reference, a fixed, unchanging, objective standard that everything else is measured against. That standard is God. God's nature is love, truth, goodness, justice, mercy, wisdom, etc. When someone deliberately goes against those things and does the opposite, that is evil. But again, evil cannot exist in and of itself. It is simply the opposition of good. Does that make sense?
I was just asking the questions, that the op didn't. As I said, I didn't even get to his main claim. As it it is, I'm still stuck at his lack of experimentation. How'd he prove his negative, is what I'm asking.
Ah well. Gosh. Do what tya want, guys, I don't care. lol.
Again, this is not a scientific matter. Certain things are outside the realm of science. One thing I've noticed about certain people is that they think everything has to be within the realm of science.

No. There are different ways of knowing things. Science is just one tool, but there are other tools, other ways of knowing, or discerning truth. In fact, there are certain things that everyone knows are true, but are not explainable by the scientific method. Why, because science presupposes them. But now we're getting into another topic.