There can be no Good without Evil

Actually, the evil is just bad choices. Thats the tests. The choices we make. And we all learn to be Love in the end.

reply to post by mirrormaker326


Withdrawn, sorry. It makes perfect sense in my mind though.

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
I am at work right now, so I have to be brief, but if you can find anywhere on this site that I've used the bible as my foundation for the existence of anything, let me know, because I haven't used it to support anything I've said. I am not a christian or a jew (those two groups being the main proponents of the Bible), and I am not basing my belief in the divine on any religious text, but that seems to be the only thing you are capable of arguing against. I say the the Divine exists, and you tell me that I am wrong by attacking religions that I don't subscribe to.

My original post was in response to the OP who is a Biblical Literalist. If you are not talking about the Bible I have to wonder why you responded to my post. The reason that I bring up the Bible is because I am sticking within the confounds of the dicussion.

Originally posted by Firepac
How about you actually answer my questions instead of dancing around it with accusations? Please explain why an infintely powerful God can't create a Universe with good but without evil? I know it doesn't make any sense but God does plenty of things that don't make sense so that shouldn't stop him. So please do enlighten me on what it is that I'm misunderstanding.

I beg your indulgence and hope that you may allow me to answer that on behalf of another.

Let's assume as you presumed - that an almighty can create good without evil - based upon something many such as you and I can relate to - food.

We eat bread daily for breakfast. We will be happy or at least fill our stomach with bread daily. The almighty, with His power, do have the capability to give us bread daily.

Can we be content with bread daily? Many will. But some will not. What will they do? They will something that is equally or in the least better than bread. Perhaps butter on bread, or with meat, or both, or meat porridge, or ham rice with eggs? Such too, are within the power of the almighty to create.

But consider the calorie intake of butter, or meat or rice. Is it good for us in the long run? Or should we stick to bread, to have a healthier lifestyle, so that we and our loved ones may enjoy the gift of life far longer?

Similarly, our gift of life comes with choices. A thief does not consider it wrong when he steals, for he would have a justifiable reason even if insane to do so, such as staying alive But in the end, he causes someone else to suffer, when there are alternatives for the thief to survive such as getting a job. And the one who is robbed will demand justice as rightful in a civilised society, springing back suffering upon the thief when he is caught.

Without knowing the full consequences of the suffering he had caused, the thief would continue on, bring pain upon others. But when consequences of his actions are shown, he will then know on how and what choices he should make.

If all humankind would avoid stealing, pain and suffering from theft would not occur, in a world made perfect. But then, so too will free will or to make choices. Should one day a complex event happen, such as geological change occur such as harvests failing and many are starved, should then men simply starve, or rob others to survive, or think of ways and means to elevate sufferings of others and oneself beside the temptation to steal from others?

Free will was gifted to deal with complexities of civilisation, for there many alternatives to choose from. But should we humanity choose one that harms others, we will only eventually be harming and dooming ourselves. WIthout a controlled environment of knowing what will elevate us or doom us, the chances are we will only become robots following outdated and irrelevant data to our demise when the environment or situation had changed.

Thus, we were never created to be robots, but to be thinking humans, to know what is right and what is wrong, to make the right choice, for ours and our future generations progress and evolution.

Originally posted by Firepac
If God can create the day and night cycle BEFORE he created the sun surely he can create a universe without evil? I thought God was infinitely powerful?

edit on 23-3-2012 by Firepac because: (no reason given)

Of course god can. But he seem to have choosen to let us evolve to it and allow us to experiance duality and have fun with it.

reply to post by Firepac


The reason I responded is because snarky little subjects of the Queen like yourself like to ridicule and poke fun at people with faith, and even though Biblical literalists can't see the forest from the trees sometimes, at least they believe in something and do not endorse that "Man is the measure of all things".

I made the decision to respond to you, because I support people of faith (whatever faith they choose), because they are making a stand amidst a world of morally reprehensible materialists. I don't know you , so I cannot comment on your morals, but you decided to electronically ridicule the OP for having faith because you feel intellectually superior. Well, you are not nearly as brilliant or witty as you think you are, and I felt I should step in an help you see that, because I don't like condescending bullies.

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by Barcs

 

There is a difference between "Free will" and "Freedom". If I were tied to a the floor with restraints, my freedom would be gone, however, physical bondage does not restrict "Free Will". Slaves had their freedom denied, but not their free will.

That's exactly the misinterpretation I was talking about. I think free will actually means freedom. Free to do as you please; not anyone's slave. When they say god gave you free will, it is referring to him granting people freedom. It makes sense.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by Barcs

 

Let's put free will to the test.

You can reply, or not to reply to my post to you.

Is this free will, or an act of consciousness from your mind? If it is consciousness as you presume, then what are the facts that support consciousness acting on its own, for you implied that it is a neurological response to environment, something akin to a computer, but yet, I had never seen my computer acting on its own intelligently to respond on forums, let alone turning itself 'on'.?

It is an act of consciousness from my mind. I weighed out the options and decided to respond. The computer is a tool, but I am the one you are talking to. I'm not saying consciousness couldn't be an extension of the body (ie soul). That is something we cannot answer for sure. But there is no special force or free will that allows me to make that decision. I made in my mind. Nothing else necessary, unless you happen to be a slave. If that were the case I would not have the freedom right now to use this computer and debate with you on here.

However, much of the bible, as well as majority's mainstream religion, had taught mankind much of civilisational ways. Much of what you see - the bad - happening in our world today, are only a reflection of paths that had diverged from such teachings by the selfish some amongst the ruling economic - socio - political leaders worldwide.

Empathy is the only way. Many don't have it. Not everyone needs a moral guideline book to realize it, but I admit there are plenty that do. Then again, there are also plenty who follow certain holy books, but don't show empathy at all.

Perhaps, you may wonder and even ponder, in your free time and free will, on WHO have taught such civilisation guidelines to mankind whom we humanity had ignored time and time again.

Why couldn't society have slowly developed over time and eventually learn these things themselves, then teach them to others? We don't have a supreme being teaching scientists and doctors, we have to research everything ourselves.

I seriously doubt if cavemen could even comprehend the 10 commandments if left alone on their own, with their barbaric way of life using one simple jungle law where only the fittest survive, let alone them avoiding immediate extinction. I had never seen monkeys building towers, healing their sick such as diabetes or taking care of their aged, whom were often left to die by being food to other predetors.

Humans were smart for a long time, almost as smart as we are today. Neanderthals who lived 100,000-400,000 years ago had bigger brains than us. They could comprehend it. Again, it all boils down to empathy.

reply to post by Unity_99


Yea, your kind of getting at the defense where "Things seeming bad/evil are simply lacking in the good, or lacking God some say"(I never really liked that terminology; lacking God). But alas you begged the question. the problem of evil asks how it is even possible to be there? How is it possible there is a lack of good, what you call bad decisions. How could anything ever be bad, if God was both all powerful, all good, and all present? It seems to be a contradiction; nay, certainly. You cannot simply quantify the existence of something infinite into larger portions of existence here and smaller, there.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Many atheists often spout such lines and thus their reasoning that there can be no supreme being, for if there is, He would not have created evil.

This is not an argument against the existence of a Supreme Being, it is a reason to hope such a being does not exist.

If an omnipotent God allows evil to exist in the universe then that God is, by definition, accommodating towards evil. Such a God could not be good, nor can we trust that in the universe He created right will always triumph in the end. We could not hope for justice, understanding, or affection from such a God. We should always be in fear, not just of His wrath, but of His purposes, His whims, His lusts and His follies. As for our own attempts to do good, our own expressions of kindness, charity and affection, they would be nothing but a futile, tragic joke for God's derisive amusement.

This being the case, a thinking person has only two rational choices:

1. Believe in an amoral God who is as quick to do evil as He is to do good, and act accordingly oneself;
   
   
2. be an atheist, accepting the universe as a mechanical system to which the application of moral values is meaningless, and act according to one's own understanding of what is right.

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is not an argument against the existence of a Supreme Being, it is a reason to hope such a being does not exist.

If an omnipotent God allows evil to exist in the universe then that God is, by definition, accommodating towards evil. Such a God could not be good, nor can we trust that in the universe He created right will always triumph in the end. We could not hope for justice, understanding, or affection from such a God. We should always be in fear, not just of His wrath, but of His purposes, His whims, His lusts and His follies. As for our own attempts to do good, our own expressions of kindness, charity and affection, they would be nothing but a futile, tragic joke for God's derisive amusement.

This being the case, a thinking person has only two rational choices:

1. Believe in an amoral God who is as quick to do evil as He is to do good, and act accordingly oneself;
   
   
2. be an atheist, accepting the universe as a mechanical system to which the application of moral values is meaningless, and act according to one's own understanding of what is right.

It is your personal right and opinion, I suppose, that you would define God the way you did. Religion is a personal issue, as I had mentioned before, and what you said is something you alone are responsible for.

But just to entertain you, let's presume all mankind were to do away with God and His teachings, and choose to be atheist as you so structured the options in the manner that you want and yet dare call it 'logical', for betweeen choosing presumed 'evil' or do 'what's one own understanding is 'right', what would the world be like?

No two humans think alike. Think of the chaos that you would create as an atheist,if allowing 'what's one own understanding is 'right', to be the socio-economic-political policy of the land. Chaos would result.

For example:- California lets majority of its legislated laws to be voted by the majority, instead of allowing the elected legislatives sort out laws for the common good. Direct democracy is good, but it is easily manipulated by the rich against the poor. And today, we saw the result of a dysfunctional and bankrupted California.

Fatwa, or an islamic edict, can be made by just about any muslim, and thus any muslim can simply call for Jihad - Holy War, upon others. Many muslims had been lied to and manipulated by evil beasts masquerading as men whom are only hell bent on extermination of the human race, to support such atrocities upon innocents, as witnessed worldwide for a decade.

Israel' gov, through the control of a few far right radical robotic rabbis and land grabbing rich elites, through their refusal to hand over occupied lands, had escalated the sufferings of both common Israelis and Palestinians, with needless precious human lives lost.

I can go on, but you would see the point. Humans are only flawed beings, and if we do not know 'evil', seeing it for ourselves and understanding, we will never know what is 'good' or to treasure it, as beings given free will.

And where did good come from? It certainly didn't just came out of the blue, but through our ancestors, and much of it had historical records to prove where civilisational guidances and guidelines came from.

As an atheist, one too has free will, to do as he wishes - perhaps governed by teachings and guidelines which can only come from one's ancestors, or to do evil, acts which will harm and hurt himself as well as others.

Like wine, some claim it is an evil. But wine had been something taught and passed down by our ancestors. It was certainly better than untreated river water during ancient times which was not ready for the tech knowledge of today, for far too many were serfs and slaves, deprived of education then.

Thus, can we claim that wine and such technology are 'evil'? No. Wine or grapes or alchohol alone is not evil. There are only acts of man that is evil. It is when wine is taken in excess that causes evil, such as violence, drunk driving, etc. Similar for many bounties our planet is blessed with.

It is what we do with our free will given, in order that we may get it right or to make mistakes, correct them by being convinced of it by ourselves, that we as a species can progress and evolve. A man convinced, by his own efforts, has far more potential for positive growth than one that is forced. Free will and civilisational teachings are gifts to us by our common Creator.

PS:- As to your defination of God, I am much confused by those statements you made. I presumed that you and I read the same books, but how could our definations differed so wide? Perhaps you could re-read them, not take words out of contexts but situational perspectives on why some actions had to be done, and join more fellowships with families, relatives and friends to discuss and debate, to find out more?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

But just to entertain you, let's presume all mankind were to do away with God and His teachings, and choose to be atheist as you so structured the options in the manner that you want and yet dare call it 'logical', for betweeen choosing presumed 'evil' or do 'what's one own understanding is 'right', what would the world be like?

At worst, it would be no different from what it is now. The examples of injustice and inhumanity you cite are all drawn from the present world, one in which the majority of people believe in a God. So it is apparent even to you that religion is not doing a very good job of moral instruction or enforcement. History gives scant evidence of times or places where things were otherwise, though religion has always been with us; hence we must conclude that religion is probably not very useful in making people do right and shun wickedness.

I would argue that the true roots of moral behaviour lie not in some religious code, but in our social and parental instincts. You are not so far from the truth when you say that

(Good) certainly didn't just came out of the blue, but through our ancestors.

Our moral impulses do indeed come from our ancestors. They were passed on to us in our genes.

Yet even if this were not the case, one could probably still devise a valid, humane and universal ethics based on enlightened self-interest. Actually, that pretty much describes Buddhist ethics.

It is what we do with our free will given, in order that we may get it right or to make mistakes, correct them by being convinced of it by ourselves, that we as a species can progress and evolve.

Religion is not required for that. Indeed, it is often a hindrance.

reply to post by Astyanax


Looking at the state of our world today, I can understand how you feel towards religions as practised around the world.

Fortunately, our Creator lives within us, and not in some fanciful building across the street called a church, a mosque, a synagogue, a temple, etc. Those whom have religious faith knows for sure, and those whom are not have only to reach out if they so wish on their free will. It is something personal.

However, it was the civilisational teachings that made the religious faithful know God. And they are the moral codes that governs their life. None is perfect, and at times others can see failings or even hypocrisy evident, and thus we need to often look in the mirror, to correct errors if we are wrong, inorder to progress.

Atheists often claim that they could devise their own moral codes, but Without civilisational teachings learnt from our civilised ancestors and improved upon, a flawed human can and will only do far worse, akin to beasts of the wild, a regression back to our ancient brutal cavemen ancestors days.

Look into every civilisation that rose on our planet for the past 5000 years, and you will find records of civilisation teachings passed down from a Supreme Being. History cannot lie, more so through cross references from different cultures and archeological findings.

Should we presume ourselves gods, we flawed humans will only harm and hurt others, for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without moral civilisational teachings and an educated humanity to know what is good or evil, leaders can and will devise the simplest law - survival of the fittest, and believe themselves lords of creation without accountability and subjugate mankind yet again.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

An admirable statement of your beliefs. I could ask you to show me some evidence for them, but that would be cruel. Have a nice thread.

reply to post by Astyanax


I sincerly and humbly thank you for your kind thoughts.

I have no fear of cruelty, pain and suffering anymore upon myself, for I know what is pain and suffering, but who I am is not important anyway. I can qoute thousands of examples and evidences for and to you, but at the end of the day, will you accept the truth that is just beneath your nose, if you would only open to it? Can you handle it?

More important is you, not me, over what you can an will have to accept but only based upon free will.

But no matter regardless if you are an atheist or a religion believer, you are one of us, a fellow human with basic common aspirations.

And I will do all I can within my sorely limited power as a mortal to ensure that you and those whom you love and care about, come to no harm or hurt as with humanity, so long as you do not harm and hurt to fellow humanity yourself. This I promise.

The insignificant and nobody me, do not take or make promises or oath lightly. But once given, I would move heaven and earth to honourably fulfill them, for my word is my bond, or willingly pay the price for divine retribution and seek for the path of redemption should I break oaths made.

I am only one, amongst many who think like I do, will never abandon the human race....

reply to post by Astyanax


I would like you to define "evil". I agree that the Problem of Evil, which is what you are highlighting, is a strong objection to the existence of God. So enlighten me, assume I am a tabula rasa, and tell me what "Evil" is.

A "thinking person" can identify a false dichotomy, and there is no necessity to the binary relationship you proposed.

Nonetheless, please tell me what this "evil" is that you are speaking of.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

Any act or failure to act that results in avoidable pain and suffering to any living being is evil.

reply to post by Astyanax


So from what you are saying, "evil" is an act that results in the avoidable suffering of another living creature. Lets assume this to be true. If I throw a party and I am serving, lets say, apple slices. I am walking around serving my guests, I give an apple slice to my friend and he chokes on it and dies. Under your definitions of evil, I am now an evil person. However, it seems that there is something missing in the definition you proposed if this situation can be considered "evil".

An "act" has no moral substance in an of itself. It seems that we will need to expand our definition of this form "evil" if we can continue this discussion. So I ask again, please define evil for me.

Evil means act or acts that will hurt and harm oneself and others.

There is a difference between evil and just plain bad. With evil, it is often pre-meditated and long planned to hurt or harm others. With bad, it is just degrees of harming oneself, but if not-stopped asap, will lead to full blown evil.


Example:-

We know gluttony is an evil. One gets fat, overweight and die quickly. It also uses up precious resources, at times either deprive another of it or stolen for one's gain. But is being fat evil? No. It is only BAD. Bad for one's health and productive life. He can still do all he can to reduce that weight and support from society, no need for bullying or name calling, otherwise we instead will be ones who are evil, should he feels discriminated and commits suicide.

We know drug addiction is evil. The addicted ends up paying a fortune, either by hard work or robbing others for it as it destroys his mind. It also supports the drug trade, selling drugs to other and profitting from total misery. Drug traders are definatively evil. But is the drug addict evil? No, so long as he had not hurt or harm others with his addiction, and the drug addict can be helped, for he had only harm himself and can be rehabilitated in drug rehabilitation centres.

Murder is most certainly an evil, for it deprives another of precious life which means something special to others. If the murder was pre-planned, then definately he will hang for it, no doubts about it, regardless if he shows remorse or not, for he had all the time to stop that evil from happening.

If it was done in a moment of anger, and if show remorse, he will get life with the prison keys thrown to the sea, to keep him away from humanity for he had proven himself dangerous with that flaw. If it was an accident, and he shows remorse, he will get life but with parole, so that he may reflect on his actions that had caused the death of another fellow human. Such are the ways modern society deals with evil.

These are just examples of bad and evil. I can qoute many more cases more, but societal laws are already dealing with it with even far more complex issues involved. As we progress, we must make sure to always reaffirm such laws, or to change those which are antiquidated or not relevant to modern progressive living while ensuring that we all know what is evil and that it never pays, even at humanity level.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

I am walking around serving my guests, I give an apple slice to my friend and he chokes on it and dies. Under your definitions of evil, I am now an evil person.

Where in my definition did you read that the adjective 'evil' applies to persons?