A word about the logic of the video. The child equates good to the physical properties of light and heat energy (photons and excited molecules), evil to the absence of these. The analogy falls of course given that photons and energy are physical realities that can be measured and good and evil are religious/ ethical values. But even on its surface the analogy has flaws. If we assume that, like heat and light, evil doesn't really exist but is simply a contrast or absence of good, then the universe is by default, evil. Why?
Another way to think of it, if we argue that good is a choice to not do evil, and evil doesn't really exist, could not the reverse be argued. Could we not equally say that evil is a choice to not do good and that good does not really exist but is simply the absence of evil? If both are true then neither good nor evil exist, there is just choice. I doubt that is the opinion of the proponents of the analogy.
The analogy also suggests that since evil doesn't really exist buti s simply the absence of good, then there is no need to explain the source of evil. No need for a Devil in their theology. Again there is only choice. By simply reversing the arguement again, good doesn't really exist but simply is the absence of evil, then there is no need to explain the source of good. There is no need for a God, only human choices.
The analogy fails to logically convince primarily because it equates physics to ethics as if Good or Evil are objectifiable quantifiable physical realities, when they do not really exist as such but are in reality judgements of the choices humans make.
Boy that last sentence ran on a bit.