Good without Evil?

[Sleepy Mexican]

My brother and I had a long argument about if there can be good without evil. Talking about here on Earth, with the pure good all gone, (You can't look too serious at just the question to participate in this argument.) It ended with calling each other "faggot".

From an "outer perspective", a God perhaps, would still be able to decipher evil. Of course this would almost just be drawn as Hell. From a perspective as a member of this society with no good, would the things and what is being done still be evil? If you can't use good to judge it, how can it still be there? If what you're doing is all you know, is it evil?

From your point of view if you were pure evil it may not be considered evil, but from a judgemental 3rd perspective it is obviously evil.


Comment, we're stuck. If there are flaws in what I've said, please name them.

[Thrash]

If everyone was good (To the 100% maximum) and there was no evil we'd have no reason to call it anything. There is no opposite to compare it to.

[VeeKaChu]

"There is no good or evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."

Thus spake J.K. Rowling.

[hepcat]

Something similar to this came up in my english class while discussing Macbeth.

I think a similar question would be: Can a person knowingly do evil? I say No. An act one person deems evil will always be rationalized somehow in the other person's head, of course, from their perspective and all.
But I think that's a bit off topic...not what you were talking about.

Right right then.
Carry on.

There can be no good without evil.
There can be no science without religion.
There can be no hapiness without suffering.

[Sleepy Mexican]

But, you're saying there can't be one thing without it's counterpart. Things cannot exist if there is nothing to judge it by? If someone was blind, would there be a sky? If the whole earth was blind, would there be a sky? There would without us knowing it. We just can't decipher it. You do not need to be able to judge whether it is good for it to be there.

[4est]

Originally posted by Sleepy Mexican
But, you're saying there can't be one thing without it's counterpart. Things cannot exist if there is nothing to judge it by? If someone was blind, would there be a sky? If the whole earth was blind, would there be a sky? There would without us knowing it. We just can't decipher it. You do not need to be able to judge whether it is good for it to be there.

Close...

There is only blindness because we know sight.
There is only a sky because we know of the earth, oceans and space.

We must have a point of reference to define blind and sight, earth and sky or good and evil.

[Sleepy Mexican]

^ Got relevance? The only thing I could pick out was:

to me, there is no good or evil, there is only the mind.

Hmm...continue discussion!

Perspective.

What can define a 'good' person?

[Kami-]

I think im gonna read those books again. Thanks for the idea.

[/useless post]

[Tripwire]

only way to not have evil is to remove all free will

[MindFlare]

Originally posted by WrathChild
There can be no good without evil.
There can be no science without religion.
There can be no hapiness without suffering.

End of discussion.

Originally posted by MattDavis
Something similar to this came up in my english class while discussing Macbeth.

I think a similar question would be: Can a person knowingly do evil? I say No. An act one person deems evil will always be rationalized somehow in the other person's head, of course, from their perspective and all.
But I think that's a bit off topic...not what you were talking about.

Right right then.
Carry on.

And that is completely not true. I have done things I have KNOWN to be wrong and "evil", but I did them anyway. Of course, I believe in Karma and alot of eastern religion theology.


In my perspective, "Good" and "Evil" are human concepts. Without "evil" there can never be "good".

[Tripwire]

Ya, unless you are a total idiot, you know you are doing bad things when you do them.

[[RiCE]cancer]

I guess I'll (yet again) be the "weird" person and say that good and evil's existence are not dependent on one another. We're always reading books like 1984, Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451 where some society has tried to perfect itself, but ironically made a world much more terrible than our own.

Bah, I say.

I'll write a book where they actually succeed. It will have no conflict, climax, or resolution. I'll call it Paradise Gained. Take that, Milton.

In my book, every person would have his or her own private universe, and true free will. The kind where you can have whatever you want just by thinking about it. I would oversee the whole operation, and have a huge happiness meter for every single person. Those falling below "euphoric" would be investigated and corrected immediately.

There would, of course, be no "evil" there. And while my literary characters might not fully appreciate their bliss, I don't think they'd have to for it to be "good".

I'm starting to sound like a moral objectivist. Hose me down.

[MindFlare]

LOL Cancer. I'll buy that book if you ever make it.

[Sleepy Mexican]

Is it not still light without a definition? From a human perspective in a "light w/out dark" world it just is, nothing more. From a 3rd perspective, it's light. Is it not the same thing as it was before?

[MindFlare]

Originally posted by Sleepy Mexican
Is it not still light without a definition? From a human perspective in a "light w/out dark" world it just is, nothing more. From a 3rd perspective, it's light. Is it not the same thing as it was before?

Do what?


Look. By our human definition of Good and Evil, they can only coexist. Such a debate could go on forever and really get into some paradoxial corners.

For instance, can there be Evil without Good?

What we define as Evil and Good are all relative. So its a pretty vapid debate if you ask me. *shrug*

Good is a description, every discription has a opposite because they are all relative. Its like if your ugly, but everyone better looking than you dies. To the people still alive your the best looking thing on earth. You were only ugly cause their were people better looking than you. Now youre hot only because everyone else is worse looking. Actions are only good because worse things could be done.

I good understanding of language and semantics can make light of this would be philosophical question.

[Freak]

Good and Evil are only outliers of an action spectrum. Think about this. An old lady is having trouble crossing the street. You can either: walk by, help her, or push her down. Now suppose nobody EVER pushed her down. Then most likely, we would begin to consider people that didn't help her to be acting in an 'evil manner.' So in a sense, good and evil do exist as descriptors of the exteriors of an action/thought spectrum. But their exact definitions and conceptualizations are relative. Therefor, it isn't matter of whether you can have good with out evil, or vice-versa, the important thing is that both always exist as extremes. You always have both, never one without the other, never neither.

[Sleepy Mexican]

Originally posted by Freak
Good and Evil are only outliers of an action spectrum. Think about this. An old lady is having trouble crossing the street. You can either: walk by, help her, or push her down. Now suppose nobody EVER pushed her down. Then most likely, we would begin to consider people that didn't help her to be acting in an 'evil manner.' So in a sense, good and evil do exist as descriptors of the exteriors of an action/thought spectrum. But their exact definitions and conceptualizations are relative. Therefor, it isn't matter of whether you can have good with out evil, or vice-versa, the important thing is that both always exist as extremes. You always have both, never one without the other, never neither.


Even with a neutral, it the neutral no longer becomes the new evil if the old is done away with. Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked. Characterized by anger or spite. In your example, just walking by is not evil, although it is the new lowest thing you could do, it does not make it evil.

Take out the neutral act, as if there were only good and only evil. Now nobody ever pushes her down, everybody helps her. They are no longer doing good?

[LactoseOverdose]

Oh someone has to do it... "Faggot."

Putting some actual content into this post, how can good and evil even be assesed when nobody knows how far reaching (how many people are affected) or how far extending (for how long) the consequences of individual actions are.

[Kaneda]

Originally posted by Sleepy Mexican
Even with a neutral, it the neutral no longer becomes the new evil if the old is done away with. Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked. Characterized by anger or spite. In your example, just walking by is not evil, although it is the new lowest thing you could do, it does not make it evil.

Take out the neutral act, as if there were only good and only evil. Now nobody ever pushes her down, everybody helps her. They are no longer doing good?

Well - it's just not something we'd define as 'good' since in that example no one has ever done anything on the contrary (ie. push her down)

oh and for the record, morals are relative, not absolute... what someone defines as a benchmark for evil isn't necessarily the same elsewhere. the entire issue is, like most philosophical disucssions, one big grey area.

[Omega Nine]

There is neither good nor evil, but thinking makes it so.

[Sleepy Mexican]

That makes perfect sense, see my original post.

From an "outer perspective", a God perhaps, would still be able to decipher evil. Of course this would almost just be drawn as Hell. From a perspective as a member of this society with no good, would the things and what is being done still be evil? If you can't use good to judge it, how can it still be there? If what you're doing is all you know, is it evil?

From your point of view if you were pure evil it may not be considered evil, but from a judgemental 3rd perspective it is obviously evil.


Must you know something is there for it to exist?

[Hellcat554]

Originally posted by Tripwire
only way to not have evil is to remove all free will
i read that in the scriptures somewhere...and thats wat i believe, there cant be good without evil, cuz its not compareable if there isnt evil

[ep]

if there can be good without evil than how was god good before he created satan? & why would a all-knowing, all-powerfully, god create satan anyway? was he bored & just wanted to play a chess game with human beings as the pieces. but no god is suppose to be all-loving so nothing makes sense. only way i can make sense out of it is god is not at all loving. he is just playing games with us.

think about it. if you was god & you could stop hilter from being born or stop your daughter from dieing or stop death period & had the power to do it you would. i know i would. also i know my son wouldn't of died on no cross. i would of just clicked my fingers & man sins would of been forgiven.

the Christan god has the power to remove evil. why doesn't he? oh it is part of some plan in end that is going to cause more suffering.

why would anyone want to worship a god that has the power to stop evil now but refuses to? it is like a jew worshiping hilter cause hilter promises he will be all good to the jews in 10 years from now.

[OuTaKeR]

Originally posted by WrathChild
There can be no science without religion.


I beg to differ. The other two you used were complete opposites, but religion and science aren't opposites. Just because they oppose each other doesn't mean their opposites. The two are just ideas on how the world works.

[MindFlare]

Originally posted by evil philosopher
if there can be good without evil than how was god good before he created satan? & why would a all-knowing, all-powerfully, god create satan anyway? was he bored & just wanted to play a chess game with human beings as the pieces. but no god is suppose to be all-loving so nothing makes sense. only way i can make sense out of it is god is not at all loving. he is just playing games with us.

think about it. if you was god & you could stop hilter from being born or stop your daughter from dieing or stop death period & had the power to do it you would. i know i would. also i know my son wouldn't of died on no cross. i would of just clicked my fingers & man sins would of been forgiven.

the Christan god has the power to remove evil. why doesn't he? oh it is part of some plan in end that is going to cause more suffering.

why would anyone want to worship a god that has the power to stop evil now but refuses to? it is like a jew worshiping hilter cause hilter promises he will be all good to the jews in 10 years from now.

Its called "free will". I suggest you read more about the religion you're bashing. Becuase not only are you doing a bad job, you sound like a retard. :/

[AGT-King]

Originally posted by evil philosopher


I'm sorry, I don't have anything to contribute to this conversation, except that I want to know what movie evil philosopher's sig is from? It made me chuckle and now I want to see the movie or whatever it is.

[CountBubba]

The definitions of good and evil vary from society to society. The way somebody is brought up and taught affects his/her viewpoint on life and therefore makes decisions based on that viewpoint. Anybody can understand the differences between good and evil, but because everybody has a different definition of each word, there is no actual universal definition.

For example, if i was brought up by a father who robbed banks for a living, i wouldn't think twice about stealing being wrong. Hey, my father did it, what's so bad about that? This can be compared to let's say if my father owned a bank, and somebody robbed it. I would think the person who robbed us was evil and should rot in jail, yet when my father did the stealing, i figured hey, that's life.

[SithDrummer]

Originally posted by AGT-King
I'm sorry, I don't have anything to contribute to this conversation, except that I want to know what movie evil philosopher's sig is from? It made me chuckle and now I want to see the movie or whatever it is.

American Psycho, I believe. I just got it, probably be watching it sometime this weekend.

[Hellcat554]

Originally posted by evil philosopher
if there can be good without evil than how was god good before he created satan? & why would a all-knowing, all-powerfully, god create satan anyway? was he bored & just wanted to play a chess game with human beings as the pieces. but no god is suppose to be all-loving so nothing makes sense. only way i can make sense out of it is god is not at all loving. he is just playing games with us.

think about it. if you was god & you could stop hilter from being born or stop your daughter from dieing or stop death period & had the power to do it you would. i know i would. also i know my son wouldn't of died on no cross. i would of just clicked my fingers & man sins would of been forgiven.

the Christan god has the power to remove evil. why doesn't he? oh it is part of some plan in end that is going to cause more suffering.

why would anyone want to worship a god that has the power to stop evil now but refuses to? it is like a jew worshiping hilter cause hilter promises he will be all good to the jews in 10 years from now.

....its called the war in heaven, satan wanted one thing, when jesus wanted another, 66% of the ppl stayed in heaven, when satan went to hell with his 33% and did w/e i guess, god didnt intionally make satan, satan made himself who he is, not god, and when hitler came down here, was then when he decided to be evil, he used to be good in heaven, but ppl change, and obviously he did, and if u follow his plan, u wont have more pain and suffering, unless thats ure idea of paradisical glory...

edit: follow gods plan, not hitlers =P

[Hellcat554]

and also my solution to this question,
if we were all good, there would be knowledge of evil, because the temptation to do evil wuold still exist

[ep]

Originally posted by MindFlare
Its called "free will". I suggest you read more about the religion you're bashing. Becuase not only are you doing a bad job, you sound like a retard. :/

ok first of all the 'free will' answer makes no sense & any good philosopher can agure that there is no free will. second since i have a philosopher minor so i have probaly read more about relgion than most people. i was myself a christain for 20 years. third since you have no real answer you say i sound like a retard which in turn makes you sound like a retard. it is funny how people avoid the facts. get all upset that there is a GREAT BIG FLAW in the christain relgion & call me a retard. hmmm...ok i guess i will go read the bible.

some of the great christains like descartes (if you took any form of math you should know who this is) have thought about the problems of god. my favorite one from him was what if god was really the devil tricking us.

the fact is the problem of evil (which states for the retards, how can a all-knowing, all-loving, & all-powerful god allow evil to happen?) has been a major topic for many philosophers. the best 2 answers i have heard is that the christain view of god is wrong or that god is not all-loving (which is the normal christain philosopher answer). free will doesnt have shit to do with it. but i suppose someone on this forum will come up with a answer :o.

also someone said god didnt know satan was going to be evil. than you are saying god is not all-knowing or all-powerful.

my favorite comment on the problem of evil was from fyodor dostoevsky in his great book 'the brothers karamozov' (omg i read another book!). i loved how ivan told alyosha that since god allows evil to happen that he will give back his ticket to heaven to god. alyosha calls it rebellion but i call it clear thinking.

i suggest picking up bertrand russell's book "why i am not a christian?". russell was probaly one of the best philosophy writers of the last century. i guess i wouldnt know that since i dont read. my favorite quote from the book is

"It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age: but, if, so it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."

keep guarding the door but one day we will knock that fuckin dragon out.

[ep]

a little bit of writing from dostoevsky to show my point better than i could:

"Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly. "One can hardly live in rebellion, i want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge you - answer. Imgaine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that baby beating its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

anybody that would of said yes to that question deserves to burn in hell.

dostoevsky just owned you & me. thank god retards like me know how to read.

btw that pic is from american psycho. the book is much better than the movie but i did enjoy the movie very much.

[ep]

:eek:

[SithDrummer]

Ivan thinks pretty simply.

[silkriven]

There is no good. There is no Evil. We do what we want. Some people make up names to categorize some of the things our predecessors have done, which gives influence to both the spawn of good and or evil, and individual thinking. Therefore they do not exist. Good and Evil are merely theories meant to give reason to action.

[larcain]

First, Ivan's interpetation of what the cosmic rules equate to are to say the least, slanted.

Second, you think you are going to be the first to think of "killing God"?


Read Nietzsche's "Madman" and before your go and think of just how noble and intellectually superior that notion you're putting forward seems to be, notice the problems that are revealed by Madman. The pomposity of assuming that all who disagree with the notion that man's free will and creativity can only blossom with the death of God are naive and stupid is only overshadowed by the puzzling non-answers offered by people who agree with such a concept.
I think this Steve Turner piece while amusing, very much IS the creed for the post-modernist thoughts mostly demonstrated in the previous posts:


This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.


"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

[[RiCE]cancer]

This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

Yes.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.


No.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

Yes.

[ep]

Originally posted by larcain
First, Ivan's interpetation of what the cosmic rules equate to are to say the least, slanted.

Second, you think you are going to be the first to think of "killing God"?


Read Nietzsche's "Madman" and before your go and think of just how noble and intellectually superior that notion you're putting forward seems to be, notice the problems that are revealed by Madman. The pomposity of assuming that all who disagree with the notion that man's free will and creativity can only blossom with the death of God are naive and stupid is only overshadowed by the puzzling non-answers offered by people who agree with such a concept.
I think this Steve Turner piece while amusing, very much IS the creed for the post-modernist thoughts mostly demonstrated in the previous posts:


This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.


"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

lol good stuff.

[MindFlare]

EP, I am by no means a philosopher. I call things like I see them. If you're such a philosopher then you would know debating religion is a no win situation. You can say there are flaws here, and there, and you may be true. The "can God create a stone which he can't move" thing kinda fits in there.

I'm a different kind of Christian though. I don't really think any of the major religions have pegged it. I believe what I feel in my heart.

I called you a retard because you sounded like one; Although, I probably shouldn't have. Maybe you just write fast or without thinking. I do that sometimes as well. I'm not the pinnacle of grammar and spelling, but at least I can string together somewhat cognitive sentences and paragraphs. (not saying you can't) There are many people here that pose to be something they aren't. They're usually easy to pick out mainly because of their weird syntax and the way the "talk". You came off that way to me.

Another big thing you brought up was free will. How can there be free will with and omniscient God? Maybe he knows every single possibility that could ever come of anything? That still leaves room for free will and omnipotence. Who knows, I'm not God. But, as cliché as this sounds, thats a big part of having faith.

[ep]

yes i will be honest on forums i do get careless with what i type. i think it is where email has made most of us lazy writers. so maybe i came off harsh in previous post. i am far from a philosopher (my name is joke between me & my wife). although i will say any man that questions what he has been told or seen or believes in a sense is a philosopher.

you speak of faith. there is 2 kinds of faith:

faith based on objective truth (which many will say is not faith at all) which is scientific (ie i believe that this is pc is in front of me & science tells me i am right) & faith based on subjective truth. the subjective truth is what true faith is & it comes from personal truths. as you said never can you prove which religion is right. so it is given faith in god based on objective truth is impossible.

but when you look at faith based on subjective truth my problem is conditioning. from day one most christan's are conditioned to be a christian & this works for other religions also. i know people leave religions & so on but generally this is correct. i guess my point is alot of people chose to be christian not out of faith but out of convenience. most people are like i am not sure what the truth is but i will believe this way so i will stay out of hell. compare this to people you died in the early days of christianity for their beliefs or the muslims that flew the planes into the WTC. now that was true faith. i respect that & wish i had that. i know this is side tracking the issue but i wonder what relgious people have to say about conditioning & the affects it has on your faith.

[MindFlare]

Honestly EP, I can't speak for the majority of Christians out there, becuase I am not part of the majority.

I hold a unique view of religion. Its really a mishmash, stewpot religion. But, I would say, 85-90% of it is Christian.

I really have no idea where I'm going with this. I have never been fond of people telling me what is "truth" and "fact". I would rather search my soul (as sappy as that sounds) and find what I believe is to be "truth".

[OuTaKeR]

Evil Philosopher:
i loved how ivan told alyosha that since god allows evil to happen that he will give back his ticket to heaven to god. alyosha calls it rebellion but i call it clear thinking.


Can you explain that a little more clearer?

[ep]

ok now this is going by memory from a book i read about 4 years ago. but what happens is ivan tells his brother (who is going to be priest) a story about russian general that has families working for him (almost like slaves). a very very young boy throws a rock at the master's dogs. so the master makes the mother of the boy watch while the dogs eat the boy alive. ivan's point was that how could god let that happen if he is all-powerful. he believes this makes god wrong. so he said if he has a ticket to heaven from god basically he will throw it in god's face. that it is not worth it since that child was killed that way for no reason. his brother calls it rebellion (which from most people point of view would be the greatest act of rebellion) but ivan sees it as doing what is right.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

This is kind of a ridiculous thread, looks like its gotten off track as well as far as good and evil are concerned. I'll just give my two bits on good and evil.

First off evil - what is it?

Evil is simply the absense of Good. Just as dark is the absense of light. Black is the absense of colour. Etc. Evil does not even exist in the first place!

Now, if you are Christian and follow the Creation account in Genesis, we would be aware that when God created the world, everything was perfect. Everything was Good. No evil. Upon the original sin - pain, suffering, hate, etc. entered the world. Where there are these feelings, that is where "evil" is. So Good did exist without "Evil" at one point in time. As long as we live in a sinful world though, evil will be there.

Side note: Alot of you are confusing science with philosophy in this thread as well. :rolleyes:

[NVader]

People confusing perception with reality again. Pfft.

Of course there can be good without evil. Will it ever happen? NO. Doesn't change the fact that good and evil exist seperately.