dann is basing his argument on the idea that good and evil follow the rule of equal opposites... its a flaw, although im too tired to think of how one could exploit it atm.
lol ok fine.. youve given me a new thing to think about... cases and assumptions case 1: evil doesnt exist. if evil doesnt exist, then God would be All. if evil doesnt exist, then the world would be a utopia. but since the world is not a utopia, God cannot be All, therefore God cannot exist. case 2: evil < God if evil does exist, even if its just a little, that little section is something God cannot reach, as God is all good, and evil is bad. therefore it is a limit on God, therefore he is not omnipotent, therefore God doesnt exist. Case 3: Evil > God need i elaborate? Case 4: God does not exist therefore Evil does exist somehow. which is true, because bad things can happen in reality.
Your 4 cases failed to address the scenario where God can in fact reach (and banish) evil but chose not to (for whatever God-ly reason only he knows)... Not doing doesn't equate unable to do, that's the flaw I found in your argument.
lol ok fine. busted. but since God represents good, if he has the power to rid of Evil, why does he not choose to? that would mean God is not good for letting Evil remain?
Or he got his own evil intention to have "evil" around so that he appear "nicer"? It all goes back to the argument how "good is not good if opposite of good (evil) doesn't exist".
now that.... is... uhhh.... im lost lol i dont even know. you come up with the wildest scenarios lol what youre saying is: good != good, iff evil DNE. but if opposite of good is bad, then that is the same as saying good = bad, iff evil DNE but since evil and bad are associated, bad cannot exist if evil is DNE.. hence contradiction... but a contradiction can even be pulled from the first expression... you cant have 1 != 1... lol we're turning this into a battle of logic...
What I am saying is that good is only good because evil exist, otherwise, good is just a term (rhetoric) which describes nothing (which encompasses everything and nothing at once). It's kind of like asking if someone can see "nothing", if that person can see "nothing", isn't he actually seeing "something"? This is quickly turning into a huge rhetoric mess. "bad" and "evil" are only associated because it is BELIEVED that bad stems from evil. It's the way it's defined, to change the definition of one thing is to change everything... Kind of like, if I call my feets my arms, does that mean my arms are exclusively my feet? Not necessarily because obviously I still have my upper limb intact by the name "arm"... Because nobody's arguing for the "God exists" side.
Hah gonna butt in after missing how much of what went on here. What if evil exist because free will exists? Gods ultimate goodness was to show that we were allowed to make our own paths in life and to choose to follow him or not to follow him, or her or it (yaknow wat i mean) and sometimes i find it quite hard to define what is evil and what is not... many things which were considered evil in the past are acceptable now (vice versa) and what if we defined good as selflessness and compassion towards other people then it can exist without evil right? i mean dont think of it in terms of comparisons e.g without big there is no small but think of it as an attribute so it exists no matter what. and even if you think of it as a comparison then with the above definition of good it could exist without evil because good would simply mean to live for other people and not for yourself as long as YOU exist then good can exist too. E.g A man walks along a street and sees a injured person if you were a good person you would help him if you were a bad person you would hit him and stuff or YOU coud just simply walk on by if we omit the evil act there is still possibility for good to exist as long as you yourself exist
then i guess it all comes down to the definition of good and bad.. which.. i am too lazy to find out atm.. lol
Now blaming "evil" on human's free will (as it is given by God, or something like that) is equally inadequate as the whole "Why would God allow such and such happen"... Because it could imply that God is not omnipotent or God is not "good" in allowing such "evil" to exist. I am incline to think that "evil" is the absence of "good", but that's definitely an over-simplified view on "evil". Consequently, this over-simplified view allow "good" to be defined as "not evil". So according to this particular view, "good" and "evil" are the two sides of the same coin where one cannot exist without the other. By my aforementioned view, anything NOT involving help this particular hypothetical injured man would constitute "evil"... But I guess I am just harsh, because this would mean that EVERY SINGLE person in this world was evil at one point or another... And I was kind of hoping you would join in the fun -whistle
if your referring to me being destroyed like the other 2 then that ain't happening -cool -cool2 -cool
Hey, that's not nice... Didn't you see that dann and I were just having a debate over logic? And if one choses his words wisely one wouldn't be destroyed regardless of its content or idea... It's more that just what is your argument, it's HOW you present it...
Nawww im not up-to-date with PA at the mo, i been busy an wat-not so im not aware of the 'logic' discussion between you and dann. ill check it out later providing its in this thread as im not good at finding things >.<
Yea well i guess it does depend on your own definition of what good and evil is. Like what Dann said beforehand. If a truly good human being did exist, as in the perfect 100% no evil person then according to your definition he'd have to help every joe blogg that walks his way? I dont think anybody would be able to survive if he had to go out of his way to help everybody else who was in a pickle. Therefore it would mean that the perfect human couldn't exist and so we are all therefore according to your definition.. evil, wouldn't this confirm that from a religous point of view you're a "sinner" ? I dont define good and evil to be two sides of the coin, I mean evil being the absence of good is quite a oversimplified definition i'd think. People cant simply be defined into categories that way, a murderer may kill some random person on the street yet treat another random person in the total opposite way. He's defined as evil not because of the absence of good but because he committed a crime, if good and evil can coexist within a single individual then it cannot be defined as either or. Maybe in the actions we take it could be defined as either or but not in regards to humanity.Even in these actions good and evil are not so easy to seperate and it is hard to define some deeds as either or. For instance: If a person had to sacrifice the life of a innocent man in order to save the lives of the people in his country which decision would be considered good and which decision would be considered evil? To the hypothetical injured man, what if we replaced him with a beggar or a alcoholic lying on the street and you are undetermined about the mans condition (he could be asleep, he could be half dead) would you really think that walking by him was an act of evil? what would your definition of good and evil be may I ask? ^_^
I guess they do have a point after all. So many years gone by without some wisdom is just sad... I don't use "person" as a unit of good or evil. I usually uses "incidents" or even "deeds", and that particular meter stick is extraordinarily subjective: a killer is out to get you, and you kill him in defense. Is that good? Or evil? Because one can argue that killing is evil regardless while another can say that killing the killer stop him from victimizing other people in the future, so who's right there? All these goes back to what you KNOW and what you don't know. Subjective... I don't know, how about yours?
Err I dunno how to quote like how you do soo every new paragraph is for each point that you made =P the point is not simply using a person as a unit of good or evil it is just that good and evil require self-concious mediums in order to be expressed. Without us then there is no good or evil so to speak (from our point of view) but for instance if there was a God then the medium of good would theoratically work through him. Your right in saying to some extent that evil and good are determined by our deeds etc but it still means that it works through us we are the neccesary medium. If it is not measured by people then that means that the possibility of the blank slate or the neutral man could in theory exist (and maybe some would say newborn infants are a example of that) which would further confirm my belief that there are 3 possible ways for people to act i.e good, neutral and evil and would be able to explain why good can still exist and be defined even without the existence of evil. Yes it is entirely subjective so dont you think it's wise not to judge these two concepts as either or if in existence there concepts and defintions are totally abstract? hmmm my definition gee.... I guess it would be good is to treat the rest of the world as a extension of yourself? and every individual as you treat yourself (I guess thats kinda like love thy neighbour) and evil would be not simply to ignore but to hurt and cause pain, with a deliberate intention to destroy not just others but yourself as well (because you should treat yourself as one of the individuals you are meant to treasure) so in 10 commandment terms evil would sorta be like though shall not brun thy neighbours house and crush his children and rip the skin of his back etc etc I guess neutral would be let thy neighbour do his own thing? hah but yea its not a perfect definition i guess but im only human hehe
