Why Good and Bad Can't Really Exist

Originally posted by sinohptik
To me it indicates that the different parts of the wave/cycle/duality have distinct properties as individual (but not separate) parts of the same system. I feel our dualistic concepts are based in the idea that in the physical universe, there are balances, "ebbs and flows," and "ups and downs."

That's right, those things are very easy to perceive, and you can also just as easily look at the "ebbs and flows" as a single entity, kind of exactly like we're doing now when we use that phrase as a single unit. A spectrum is something else that is a single thing but inherently we already understand that there is a gradient of constant change of some sort within it. But even knowing that, we can still conceptualize it as a single thing and interact with it perfectly well even while thinking of it that way.

Basically there is no reason why you can't have all the information available from cutting everything down into minute parts also available while looking at the system as a whole. If anything, a good look at a bigger picture is only going to provide more information. The desire to analyze things itself is part of the whole.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically there is no reason why you can't have all the information available from cutting everything down into minute parts also available while looking at the system as a whole. If anything, a good look at a bigger picture is only going to provide more information. The desire to analyze things itself is part of the whole.

So, where do you make the distinction between where "parts of the whole" end, and the "whole" begins in your perspective? If no distinction is made, why do you say the parts do not exist and have no meaning? i dont know if i am being all too clear on what i am asking here, im trying to understand where you are coming from. the answers to many questions we are asked might seem obvious to us, because "i" usually know exactly where "i" am coming from. Others do not have the luxury of that, nor us with them, unless actively making assumptions. I just enjoy learning where people are coming from, so thanks for letting me know. i have learned that the differences between perspectives are like the differences between planets, and its fun to go to "other" worlds

Originally posted by sinohptik
So, where do you make the distinction between where "parts of the whole" end, and the "whole" begins in your perspective?

I don't.

If no distinction is made, why do you say the parts do not exist and have no meaning? i dont know if i am being all too clear on what i am asking here, im trying to understand where you are coming from. the answers to many questions we are asked might seem obvious to us, because "i" usually know exactly where "i" am coming from. Others do not have the luxury of that, nor us with them, unless actively making assumptions. I just enjoy learning where people are coming from, so thanks for letting me know. i have learned that the differences between perspectives are like the differences between planets, and its fun to go to "other" worlds

I say judging whether something is "good" or "bad" is arbitrary and has no universal meaning even in a strictly logical sense. In that sense, good and bad are not "real," ie they are not objective, only subjective experiences. Logic does not give "meanings" in that way, only people do with personal perspectives, opinions and feelings.

It's no more complicated than that. If you want to read more along those lines, check out the link to Robert Anton Wilson's "Quantum Psychology" in my signature.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I say judging whether something is "good" or "bad" is arbitrary and has no universal meaning even in a strictly logical sense. In that sense, good and bad are not "real," ie they are not objective, only subjective experiences. Logic does not give "meanings" in that way, only people do with personal perspectives, opinions and feelings.

It's no more complicated than that. If you want to read more along those lines, check out the link to Robert Anton Wilson's "Quantum Psychology" in my signature.

If there is no distinction between the parts and the whole, then does the whole lose meaning when the parts do in your perspective? In your view, are the inherent differences between night and day created solely by those perceiving them?

The way i see it, our perspectives (defined in this case as the product of the mind and physical senses) are limited and subjective by nature. So, anything they view will be limited and subjective. The "peak" and "valley" that are subjectively viewed as "good" and "bad" are representative of two individual parts of the same wave, but that "triune" system, if you will, has equal meaning within all of its parts (as not distinction is made between the parts and the whole by myself either). I see them all as individual balanced parts of -the- whole, or universe. Where-in, one can not point to something contained within their limited perspective, nor the moon, and say "that is not a part of all that is!" While our view of what is "good" and what is "bad" may be flawed or misled, the concept of the "peak" and the "valley" are representative of systems and structures that exist beyond our perspective, and not contained within it. So, in my way of thinking, all products of the perspective are limited by nature, but are valid parts of the universe. the universal meaning to me is in that the perspectives themselves, and everything contained within, are intrinsic and valid parts of the universe regardless of what is contained within.

The way your words are relaying to me is that, even though no distinction is made between the parts and the whole, our perspective (which is itself a part of a whole) has products that are "less real" than other parts. I assume this is miscommunication and it has been the point i have been trying to clarify.

Do realize, i am not trying to understand the general concept. As you say, the concepts are really quite simple (which is probably why you are wondering why im asking so many questions). I dont know how i can make it any more clear though, i am trying to understand how you are conceptualizing things. I am trying to have a discussion with you on the topic that you started... If you are more interested in stating what your beliefs and concepts are than actually discussing them, let me know and ill leave ya be without a second thought I have my own beliefs on why all this is, but i will not assume you are interested (as you havent asked a single question of my perspective, or few others). Unless specifically asked, the only time ill mention such things is when trying to clarify why i might be asking certain questions. I may type very fast, but i also realize most do not share my interest in others perspectives!

You make the assumption that i have not read "Quantum Psychology" How Robert Anton Wilson views the subject will undoubtedly be different from your own perspective, by nature of variances between individual iterations. If not by verbalization, then by conceptualization and inevitably experiential means. so by reading it, all i would do is learn more about how Mr. Wilson views the world. Thank you for the suggestion though

Originally posted by sinohptik
If there is no distinction between the parts and the whole, then does the whole lose meaning when the parts do in your perspective?

What is lost is the dualistic mentality of wanting to separate everything into parts. The "meaning" of "good" and "bad" is logically meaningless in the first place! That's what the OP is about.

In your view, are the inherent differences between night and day created solely by those perceiving them?

When you don't perceive a difference between two aspects of the same thing, you don't worry about "inherent differences" between those two aspects. It is a non-issue. There is nothing to compare. The only person worried about comparing two different things is the person who is still interested in duality. That's fine, but it's duality, not the holistic view. Intellectualizing about it is also dualistic, and even more than dualistic, trying to analyze it into all kinds of detail beyond a simple dual split. That is the exact opposite direction from wholeness.

It sounds like you are saying all perspectives are equally valid. I won't argue with that. Whether I say they are equally meaningless or you say they are equally meaningful, it's the same difference.

The way your words are relaying to me is that, even though no distinction is made between the parts and the whole, our perspective (which is itself a part of a whole) has products that are "less real" than other parts. I assume this is miscommunication and it has been the point i have been trying to clarify.

Using your example of perceiving "ups" and "downs," you could perceive the same in the way some things (like gravity) are easier for others to see and agree with than others (like killing is always wrong, even in wars or self defense). Morality is notoriously arbitrary and easy to contrast with science and logic, and that contrast is the basis of my saying that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary and not objectively real. The term "objectively" is recognized by science, but I don't believe it really exists because I believe every measurement is inherently subjective. But even given that, obviously we still have some things that are easier to agree upon being real than others.

If you are more interested in stating what your beliefs and concepts are than actually discussing them, let me know and ill leave ya be without a second thought

I have my own beliefs on why all this is, but i will not assume you are interested (as you havent asked a single question of my perspective, or few others).

If you want a discussion but not simple statements, are you looking for mundane examples of what I see when I look around? I may not have asked many questions of what you think but I sure am confused as to what exactly you're trying to extract from me.

You make the assumption that i have not read "Quantum Psychology"

Then you've already read it?

How Robert Anton Wilson views the subject will undoubtedly be different from your own perspective, by nature of variances between individual iterations. If not by verbalization, then by conceptualization and inevitably experiential means. so by reading it, all i would do is learn more about how Mr. Wilson views the world. Thank you for the suggestion though

There's no reason why I should be any more special than RAW or especially yourself. I guess one way of figuring out what you think is by comparing and contrasting with everyone else ("you" generally again). But I think making your own way work for you should be more interesting in the end than anyone else.

This is one of the many subjects that kept me up at night as a child. I now see the point of the original post in a worldly view. Within myself, I do accept things as either good or bad (duality). But it is part of what defines me as a whole (singularity). Great post.

I had many of the same questions a couple of years ago and I came to my own conclusion that everything is connected and that it’s all a matter of cause and effect.
As mentioned by others, "good" and "bad" are two sides of the same man-made coin. The coin is flipped constantly as we go about our daily lives, each time landing randomly. We cannot control the outcome of the flipped coin.

A poor analogy could be,

A man has been out drinking and decides to drive home drunk, on his way home he hits and kills a child (“bad”). The man is arrested, prosecuted and goes to prison. An alcoholic women in another state sees this on the News and decides to turn her life around (“good”) As she soberly drives to the local AA meeting she makes a hard left but hits and kills a child on a bicycle (“bad”)
Had she not seen the drunk man on the News she would not have been inspired to turn her life around("good"), and would have stayed home drinking all evening("bad") sparing the child’s life.("good")

So in the end “good” and “bad” are intertwined on so many complex levels that there is no way of knowing if something “good” doesn’t have a “bad” outcome and if that “bad” outcome doesn’t have a “good” outcome.

Nice thread!

Originally posted by The GUT
And you, it seems, took a U-Turn into on-coming traffic.

I'm certainly not willing to dismiss the morality issue on the basis of 'guess-erology' scratchmane.

What else do we do but guess about such things?
You argue for freewill and the consequences that follow from that viewpoint. If there is no freewill there are consequences that follow from that. Seeing that the truth about this is hard to discern, in what could be called an objective fashion, how can we know which is true? You - We - ironically "choose" to follow one or the other path, but we can't know if what happened was freewill or not. So we guess or believe either path is true.

Originally posted by The GUT
Freewill does "get" me and it should you as well. It's the starting point for anyone who seriously wants to contemplate this issue intellectually.

Well you answered my question. I would say the starting point is to look at the arguments from both sides

Originally posted by The GUT
To dismiss it with your "ifs" shows an unwillingness to hold yourself accountable. It's obvious to me that you are looking for excuses, and you've "hypothesized" a situation that scratches your itching ears with what you want to hear.

Well thats not entirely true. One of the consequences of no freewill, that we agreed to this before coming here, is that, at the end there is only one actor, Brahman as a name could be, or God if you choose. This means, since all is connected, energetically, that I am Brahman, and ultimately responsible for everything.

So from that point of view, freewill gives you personal accountability, but not from the workings of nature ie. you are not accountable for earthquakes and whatnot. But no free will gives you accountability for everything including earthquakes, because you are Brahman and being Brahman is ultimate responsibility.

To me it seems that if responsibilty is the most important issue, I Am your best bet

There is alot of comfort for those who argue that right actions and wrong actions are illusions. Many do not want consequence. There is a natural law of consequence, none the less, and the higher function of forgiveness too, however.

The Law of One, or Oneness as one model.

The Holographic Universe, (a construct), here on earth, Becoming oneself and the infinite progression of souls (with unfortunately regressions occurring as well for a "time") another model.

You have to become your own seeker here. But there is a trail, there are things you can do to discover, and wake up, and make those U-Turns, that we all need to make.

In duality, in opposition the school looks like this: day/night, health/opposite, birth/opposite, star/dwarf star, Light/Dark. Just as there is Gravity, and its opposite as well, or a separation of elements as one overcomes negativity or those things that are "heavy" in nature and weigh on the conscience.

Seeking. Keeping a journal. Note whenever you think a particularly joyful, loving, insightful or high frequency thought, and the sun breaks out of the clouds, curtains to flood your room. How many times has that happened to you? Too many times to be considered a coincidence? It has for me.

Why is it that adults gather to diminish right and wrong and establish so many grey areas, when the heart of purer children graviate towards one way?

How do you balance: love and its opposite? kindness and its opposite? patience and its opposite? charity, giving to others, going the extra mile, and its opposite? empowering others and its opposite? calm steady warmth like the sun, or infantile reactiveness?

What does growing up mean?

Are we one? Or do we share a oneness as we grow in Love and are instead Becoming self in this school of forgetfulness. As Light we burrow deep into the trenches, in forgetfulness, to rediscover who we are and grow our Unconditional Love and Awareness, bigger in a world with so much opposition tugging against us.

Infinity is the platform. And its abstract in realizing what it implies. Yet we are all infinite consciousness, in an Infinite system, like infinite fractals, and there are two things that cannot occur within infinity, (probably alot more for even more complex cpu's), measurement and singularity.

You cannot measure infinite mass. The infinite mass within an atom is equally immeasurable therefore equal to that within a star, and that without both. There is no higher/lower, up/down, bigger/smaller an there is No Time. Earth's universe could be an atom turned inside out, or a grain of sand.

Singularity. Either in form, ie. universe, or in realization of consciousness, ie, something perceiving they are One, is a singular item, and so, place a dot on the paper and then contemplate what surrounds that dot, for that dot is certainly not an endless one, for it has definition, and that makes boundaries, and boundaries are Finite.

There is One-11111111111111111111111111111111........................'s, Infnite never ending fractals and in the abscence of time, all at once. Infinite universes, infinite consciousness, and infinite "segments of the film role" a metaphor, for each infinite lifespan.

We're in a hologram, as well. And that implies makers. Purpose. School. What are we studying anyway?

What is HS? Infinite Self, in progressed state? Having graduated beyond the veil, beyond the hologram, through the gateway. Maybe ask HS, if there is a wrong and right?

Law of Affinity, which works. and the degree or speed often depends on your frequency. Your higher frequency state, and emotion. These are very important as you explore imagining already living with what you year for.

Raising frequency occurs when you differentiate between what is low frequency or "bad" things, from higher frequency things, or "good" things. you can actually work through your life and replace bad things, make up for them, with integerity and love, forgiveness, and add more positive frequency items into your life like:
joy, forgiveness, helpfulness to others, charity, doing more to help another, music, art, poetry, nature hikes, walking, excercise, fresh fruits and veggies, non GMO, prayer, meditation, laughter.

All this can be determined by observing, seeking, taking notes, journal writing, getting out in nature, and connecting to your infinite self more. It can also be observed by listening to the hearts of children and noting those light filled people that might show up in your family, community and world, and by research.

The other side can't. Truth is truth. The other is distortion.

Originally posted by Unity_99
There is alot of comfort for those who argue that right actions and wrong actions are illusions. Many do not want consequence. There is a natural law of consequence, none the less, and the higher function of forgiveness too, however.

I never said related sequences of events don't happen. That still doesn't make any link in the series inherently "good" or "bad" though, which are still human perceptions only.

Dishing out consequences and forgiving are both functions of living beings. The Earth, air, trees, rocks, planets, plants and animals don't involve themselves with these things, unless it's an inherent forgiveness of them not involving themselves. Humans do what you are talking about, simply because they have decided to involve themselves in each others' business regardless of disagreements as to what constitutes "right" or "wrong."

The Law of One, or Oneness as one model.

"Oneness" implies duality has been transcended. "Good" and "bad" are a duality, so they must eventually be transcended to, for a truly singular perspective. Does the "Law of One" proclaim absolute morals, absolute "rights" and "wrongs" and "goods" and "bads," like a historical religion?

The other side can't. Truth is truth. The other is distortion.

How can you talk about "sides" and unity at the same time?

Originally posted by bsbray11
When you don't perceive a difference between two aspects of the same thing, you don't worry about "inherent differences" between those two aspects. It is a non-issue. There is nothing to compare. The only person worried about comparing two different things is the person who is still interested in duality. That's fine, but it's duality, not the holistic view. Intellectualizing about it is also dualistic, and even more than dualistic, trying to analyze it into all kinds of detail beyond a simple dual split. That is the exact opposite direction from wholeness.

It sounds like you are saying all perspectives are equally valid. I won't argue with that. Whether I say they are equally meaningless or you say they are equally meaningful, it's the same difference.

"When nothing is special, everything can be"

Ill go a bit into how this one sees things, since that may help you understand where i am coming from. Realize that this comes from this perspective, so what is said should be attempted to be conceptualized within that context, and not how that perspective would approach such things. because they are as different as two planets. However, such a thing does not remove individual attributes in cycles. The differences can be utilized to make proper movement within the physical world. The differences between night and day, up and down, as concepts outside of the bounds of our perspective, are the very things that make certain life possible (cycles). An extreme example: if one were to plant a rose bush in a closet (completely dark, with no light, or "night"), with proper soil, nutrients, and water it still would not grow. Why? because the individual attributes of the day part of the day/night cycle are needed. They contain different structures and systems than the night part of the cycle. And if one were to do the opposite, and place it in direct sunlight 24/7, it would become burned and likely die. It is the movement between the individual (but not separate) parts of the same cycle that allow other cycles to start their movement as well. such things even tell the plant when to start pollination, and seeding. So, if there was no meaningful difference between night and day outside of our perspective, plants would not grow, seasons would not exist. If there was no difference between the peak and valley, then no sound could be heard by our ears.

I do feel it is important to realize them as the same system, but taking it further than that, i feel it is important to realize all things as part of the same system in a very "complex" multi-level system where the peaks and valleys effect other peaks and valleys in a specific way depending on their individual (but not separate) attributes. Lets take this to multiple wave systems represented in humans. When most are approached with the "we are one" type non-duality philosophy, it is immediately assumed it is a borg-like assimiliation, since it is generally relayed that once the "whole" is realized, the parts lose themselves in the "mix." however, we are already an intrinsic part of that system, and our perspectives exist as individual (but not separate) entities within this system no matter what is contained within the perspectives themselves. Meaning, more specifically, that i see the individual parts make up the whole, and not just within perceived dualistic systems. These cycles are interconnected as all part of the same physical system of balance. There is no separation, but when i move my arm, it says nothing about whether or not yours will move.

Using your example of perceiving "ups" and "downs," you could perceive the same in the way some things (like gravity) are easier for others to see and agree with than others (like killing is always wrong, even in wars or self defense). Morality is notoriously arbitrary and easy to contrast with science and logic, and that contrast is the basis of my saying that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary and not objectively real. The term "objectively" is recognized by science, but I don't believe it really exists because I believe every measurement is inherently subjective. But even given that, obviously we still have some things that are easier to agree upon being real than others.

I agree about subjectiveness in science and logic, it was the very basis for the experience i previously linked. But, when it comes down to it, i view subjective results of a perspective, and subjectivity, as an 'objective' part of the whole, or universe. Another "peak" and "valley" as it were. No matter what is contained within the system, it is an intrinsic part of the universe.

You make the assumption that i have not read "Quantum Psychology"

Then you've already read it?

Indeed!

There's no reason why I should be any more special than RAW or especially yourself. I guess one way of figuring out what you think is by comparing and contrasting with everyone else ("you" generally again). But I think making your own way work for you should be more interesting in the end than anyone else.

I agree completely, but you are approaching my perspective with how you would be perceiving my action. We are no more, or less, special than anything else. I am not trying to figure out what "this one" thinks, that.. "stage" was accomplished years ago. I am trying to learn about another part of myself, or you. I cant learn about that specific 'peak and valley' (you) by reading or even speaking to Mr. Wilson. I cant learn about day by only looking at night. And it is this very point that illustrates the difference that is perceived by this one between individual, but not separate, parts of the whole.

As i alluded to though, i do not believe that all parts of "all that is" are relegated to such balances, just the physical universe we mostly reside in I have seen clearly that some of these things are intertwined throughout all "universes" though, without need for such duality. But thats a completely different discussion anyway

reply to post by bsbray11


Good and bad is all in the eye of the beholder.

reply to post by bsbray11


There is no illusion to what is good or its opposite. The law of affinity is both in the world and as a consequence upon leaving, where forgiveness has not freely given and received. Forgiveness is greater than karma. Generous souls receive generously. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is the Tree of Knowledge, and its a path to the progression of souls. Forgiveness and unconditional love, seeing the light in all is a part of this, they go hand in hand.

Originally posted by The GUT
Help me here because this has never made sense to me. I see, for example, child molestation as very bad. And don't tell me that the child agreed to it before they came here. Or that it's their 'karma' for a past life because you can't possibly support that with an intellectual argument.

That one society may view some act different from another I understand, but that still doesn't excuse causing another human being pain okay in my thinking.

I have listened to many of my new age friends tell me the same thing, but you should hear them whine when they feel like someone has done them wrong. I'm not trying to be a butt, but I haven't heard a good argument for your concept yet.

If you were kidnapped and tortured, would you be like "Oh, this cool. Nothing 'wrong' here?

I agree with you that if someone "agreed" to some horror, if true, is way beyond my understanding of anything that makes sense. Never-the-less, people are responsible for their actions, short of being severely mentally ill. Even if they are that never excuses vile, cruel acts. Or extreme stupidity that hurts others. But consider this: The Romans who sentenced people and those who carried out the incredible cruelty like "crucifixion" where using one method of capital punishment that was legal at that time/place. It was chosen for those "special criminals" as a method to prolong death as much as possible. They thought it was a "deterrent" just as those misguided today think murder in the name of justice (execution) is a deterrent. Lets call it what it is, revenge. Be honest about what it truly is... It has never been a true deterrent, if you think it was why were so many "executed" by crucifixion, being drawn-quartered, and a host of other horrors? Guess some people were not paying attention, then or now.

I believe the main issue people have with this concept is they mistake those words with feelings. As in, "if it feels good its good" and "if it hurts it is bad". Same thing with "how can it be good when it made/makes me feel sad".

Its hard for people to distinguish the concept from reality. Because no matter how much we can philosophize this, at the end of the day..... the outcome of actions we deem as good or bad make a difference in our lives.
1. Its all relative but then again, unless an outside source (religion,etc..) has influenced your idea most if not all human beings would agree on good and bad in the core fundamental ways.
2. People need the concept of good and bad to give meaning to their lives. As in a will to meaning. sort of an existential idea.
3. "good and evil are a point of view anakin" Chancellor Palpatine

Final word- subjective things are easy to argue (divorce is bad or good, cheating is good or bad, etc)
The simple things not so (killing, raping etc..)

Wanna know what I think? Sure you don't, but prepare to hear it anyway. Prepare!

It's all to do with the Meaning of Life. We are here because we need to prove ourselves. Learning, yes, very important, but it's not *WHY* we're here. We all choose whether to be kind and loving to everyone around us, or not, especially complete strangers. It's easy to love your parents, but how about the homeless guy stinking up that street corner and daring to ask you for some spare change? Some people take pity on him, whether they give him anything or not. Others do the opposite, they hate that man, and/or are afraid of him... because it's easier to hate than to sympathize. Whether you take the easy way out is one of the things you're here to demonstrate your preference for. Matthew 7:12-14...

Whatever you desire that others would do to and for you, even so do also to and for them; this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it. But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

And guess what happens if you don't find it? That means you've chosen the easy way. It's so much easier to just trust what Fox News and, let's say, NIST tell you; it's very difficult trying to dig Truth out of the world. Your hands get all dirty, your back gets sore, you stay depressed a lot, but you are not deceived. You might be happier on the easy path, but just wait until you get to the end of it and discover you're on a slime-covered ramp that drops you down into a pit full of broken glass that's somehow also on fire and populated with every diseased cretin that ever lived. Everyone who takes the easy path will end up wishing they'd spent the extra effort needed to take the narrow path instead. It has a much better ending. But if you do end up sliding down the end of the easy path into Hell, try to land on Hitler to break your fall.

I seem to be digressing a little; happens to me all the time. To stay on-topic, yes, good cannot exist without evil, but that's an oversimplification. It's more complete to say, "Good and evil both exist. One is easy to be, one is hard. Now choose." But it's even more complicated than that, which only makes sense considering this is thread #666600. Let me put it this way...

Originally posted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 13:
The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’

Some evil souls were deliberately planted here to screw up the good people, but yanking out those weeds would also harm the wheat. (Delicate roots, I guess.) This is the fundamental conflict of the human race, all the way back to Cain and Abel: wheat (the children of God/good) versus tares (the children of Satan/evil). God is the owner of the field; Satan is his enemy. Each of us starts out on one side or the other... but unlike plants, we can switch sides. Any evil person can choose to be good instead; any good person can choose to be evil.

And that...

...is why we're here.

You prove to God whether you're good or evil with your "works," the things you do, the way you behave. If this planet didn't exist, if he'd never invented the human race to act as a coffee filter, if we had no opportunity to choose whether to serve his side or not, there would be a lot more souls stuck in Hell for eternity, and Heaven would be practically empty. And if you don't pick a side at all, if you delight equally in doing good things and evil things, you might as well be the Antichrist because God won't want you. You'll get burned with the tares.

"But what IS good, and what is evil??" you cry in bewilderment. That's easy. Anything you do with the intention of annoying or hurting someone, that thing is evil (even if they never find out about it). Anything you do that hurts noone is not evil, and thus "good." Sin is what happens when you treat people like things, as Terry Pratchett wrote (wise man), and thus it doubles as a definition of "evil."

So in that sense, I suppose it's possible that good can exist without evil, in a way. I mean, if there are X good souls, and Y evil souls, and Z total souls, then Z minus Y equals X. X can still exist when Y equals zero. They are not co-dependent. Maybe there's a confusion inherent here; "good" is not the same as "good people." "Good" is just a concept, and that concept cannot exist without its polar opposite. But what would happen if everyone was good, and nobody was evil? The concept of "evil" would still exist, but nobody would be evil. "Evil" would become moot in that world, the world of Z minus Y. It's the same sort of thing as the fact that nobody's worried about Mongol hordes anymore. They don't exist anymore. They all went away. But the concept remains.

Make sense? Did my prolificity lose anyone? i'll summarize...

Good and bad definitely both exist as concepts, because they have to.

Good people and bad people both exist in reality, but they don't have to.

Thus, any confusion you may experience is all Satan's fault. Good night.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


This is also what I believe. I believe that there are things that are fate and other things in which we excercise choice. The speaker in that video probably arrived there from a different direction but nevertheless that seems to make the most sense to me concerning free will. In addition to making sense this has also been my experience.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Good and bad may exist as concepts, but that still doesn't mean there is anything real "out there" to which those words actually refer.

Your post is a theological view, but what I'm pointing out is purely philosophical/logical. "Good" and "bad" are what are called "value" qualities as opposed to measurable quantities like numbers or units. When you get around to even trying to define "good" and "bad" you will run into countless disagreements between countless people. No two states have the same laws. So what is breaking the law and "bad" in one state can be perfectly fine just a few miles over, even in a legal sense.

reply to post by bsbray11


OK, so I was going to ask you why cultures that adhere to these ideas are not reprobate (I know reprobate is a "judgemental" term but humor me) but I did some research and found that they reach some of the same conclusions on how to act just from a different direction, to borrow an example; you step on a nail and make a rule...thou shalt not step on nails. The taoist however simply would refrain from stepping on nails because it hurts and might advise others not to only because of his experience.
Artificial exterior rules can become outdated as circumstances change, they may have made some kind of sense when they were first made. Seems to me if a person were to adopt this way of thinking, especially if coming from a dualist background, it would have to be done in a responsible fashion. So, anyway this is not a question just a comment in case others on this thread were wondering the same thing, anything to add?

reply to post by bsbray11

Argh I've tried explaining this to my family members but they just can't come to grips with it like they don't even want to attempt to understand they just get all defensive because their firm beliefs couldn't go with that.