Does evil exist?

[AtheistAJ]

too true Ceridwen, one can not adiquately compair something as fickle as emotion to something as definite and measurable as heat.

Correct. When a child tells parents "I love you this much!" and spreads arms to show how much that is, parents don't look at it literally to see just how much child loves them, it's the thought that counts. I don't believe love can be put into numbers as it is not an element, and thus has different rules.

 

[The Conspirator]

Evil is an abstract idea as is good, they can't have a set definition as every one will see them differently. The best way to look at them both is not with one persecutive but many.

 

[stemann]

Ok the first thing is, you have all changed the argument in this thread from 'evil exists as an absence of good' to 'good and evil exist.' If you want an abstract moral debate, you probably won't get very far, as there are too many different people here with too many differing moral beliefs for you all to decide on anything, except agreeing to disagree.

Secondly:

Which leads me to my next point, "love" or more correctly emotions are all in the brain. People who are missing that part of brain have none...

I agree with you, but there is no basis to this argument. Many would argue that love is a spiritual essence which exists in the soul, and so is not physical. This can no more be proven than the existence of God. Of course, you could take away that part of someone's brain that made them feel love and observe the results, but don't you think the religious people will just come up with a way to explain that away, like some have with evolutionsm?

and there can't be complete lack of temperature. Even-460 degrees is some temperature, as the way dictionary describes temperature - "The degree of hotness or coldness of a body or environment.".

I must say, you are incorrect here. approximately minus 273 degrees celsius is the lowest temperature possible in the universe. Even if it wasn't, you can prove there must be a lowest temperature by the very definition of temperature: it is the measurement of thermal energy of a state of matter, characterised by the magnitude of the vibrations of the molecules in that state. So, if the molecules do not vibrate at all, they can't vibrate any less than that can they? Therefore you are at the minimum temperature.

Which proves emotions and elements are not related. If anything, sharing of emotions is "love" as emotions are the source of love, so the only way love can be transmitted is between living things. If god is love, and "love" is in your brain, than god is but in your brain.

Ok, so love is an emotion. You can feel zero love, just as you can have absolute zero temperature. But the amount you can increase temperature by is (I think) infinite. I am probably wrong here, as there is a maximum velocity that things can travel at in the universe (the speed of light), so there may be a maximum possible temperature. But I don't know if there is a maximum amount of love someone can feel.
Physically, there will be a maximum amount of endorphins, or whatever hormone causes love, the body can experience before it dies or passes out due to an overload. I am not exactly a biologist s cannot speak expertly on this, only offer guesswork.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I personally believe, with varyingly persuasive groundings for my belief, that there is some sort of duality about the nature of the universe. Empedocles wrote about the opposing forces of 'love' and 'strife' governing the universe, where 'love' is like gravity or some sort of physical force drawing things together, and 'strife' is the force pulling them apart.
These two are inversions of each other, and I think it is important to make the distinction between 'inversion' and 'opposite.' The opposite of 'good' is 'not good' and the inversion of 'good' is 'evil.' Thus, if 'good' is drawing together things (this can be emotionally, spiritually, physically, or any other way), then the opposite would be 'not good' (neither drawing together nor pushing away) and the inverse would be 'evil' (pushing things away from each other).

Here is the crux. I believe that the understanding of God is the willingness of Man to be together as one. Heaven is sometimes described as 'oneness with God;' if it existed (which I don't believe) then I think it would be all minds unified as one being. Evil is- and I know how cliché this is, believe me- humans attaining their own ends, greed, and general putting-yourself-before-others-ish-ness.

Doesn't the Golden Rule strive t'ward this? Assuming all people want to be treated well, then if you treat others how you would be treated, everyone will be happy. A better version of te Golden Rule I think is 'treat others as they would like to be treated,' obvious but true nevertheless.

I do not believe in any kind of objective morality, I think I am some kind of solipsist. I don't say that others don't exist, just that I will never know if they do or don't. But taking the whole world generally, if everyone was to be happy, then everyone should help each other. However, this is not enough. It seems some people would not help each other, as they would be selfish, etc. So instead, we should do this: help each other, make sure each other helps each other, and then, make sure each other makes sure each others helps each other. And so, ad infinitum, for this is how we would all help each other and live happily. By 'help' I mean treat them how they would like to be treated, and by all live happily i mean in the utilitarian sense, where the greatest good divided by the number of people is the best solution.

Obviously this is open to all the criticisms as utilitarianism; I can't explain anything further right now, I have to go. Any questions, feel free to shout at me.

 

[Popeyesays]

who's standard of Heaven do we use? My religion has no hell so then what do I use as my standard?

This is why it is difficult at best to pin down a definition of 'evil'.

wa:do

I believe heaven and hell are states of being, not places. Nor do I believe evil is from God.
"Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 149)

Regards,
Scptt

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does".
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

The student failed to mention that light waves are ultra-high frequncy sound waves. And to have light, there must be a source creating the light, or thier is darkness. The same with cold. If there is nothing producing heat, thier is coldness. If there were suns, life could not exist at its present state, because everything would be far too cold. Also, there would be only darkness, as the stars, sun, or moon couldn't light up the day or night skys.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

The student failed to mention that light waves are ultra-high frequncy sound waves.

Um. I'm quite sure light isn't sound. It does need a source, but they're two different things.

So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is, if nothing's producing light, which is to say, there's an absense of light, then there's darkness. I'm not entirely sure how this is an arguement against the story? The student's not saying darkness doesn't exist, he's just saying that it's just an absence of light.

 

[glasgowchick]

As people, we define evil to something like, muderers, child abusers etc etc, [ which I do believe is evil ] but how does God see evil, does it have to be any of the above before it becomes evil ?..In Hebrews 3:12 it says Take heed, Brethern, lest there be in you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God..So you see, we dont have to be a child abuser, a hitler or sadams of the world, and unbelieving heart is all that is required to be classed as evil in Gods word..Did God create evil, I dont think so, I believe we create or own evil by the way we make choices..we all have free will to chose which is our God given right..

 

[AtheistAJ]

The student failed to mention that light waves are ultra-high frequncy sound waves. And to have light, there must be a source creating the light, or thier is darkness. The same with cold. If there is nothing producing heat, thier is coldness. If there were suns, life could not exist at its present state, because everything would be far too cold. Also, there would be only darkness, as the stars, sun, or moon couldn't light up the day or night skys.

I didn't know sound and light are related, as atmosphere is needed to carry sound and not light. Another thing I wanted to point out is that there must be a source of cold for below zero metric temperature.

hitler or sadams of the world, and unbelieving heart is all that is required to be classed as evil in Gods word..Did God create evil, I dont think so, I believe we create or own evil by the way we make choices..we all have free will to chose which is our God given right..

Couldn't help noticing you only capitalize the word "God" of those other names. Anyway my point is that we created gods, but not "good" and "evil" as those are defined by different moral standards, that again we humans created.

 

[stemann]

So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is, if nothing's producing light, which is to say, there's an absense of light, then there's darkness. I'm not entirely sure how this is an arguement against the story? The student's not saying darkness doesn't exist, he's just saying that it's just an absence of light.

You really are all getting too hooked on science. Think of it philosophically.

Something material creates light, some source such as the sun or a light bulb. Electromagnetic waves and certain things called quanta (plural of quantum) or photons are emitted by these sources. So, put it this way: Light is a material thing.

Now, darkness. The word darkness is used to describe the absence of light. It is not material. It is used to describe something (an absence). Does this mean it exists or doesn't exist? That all depends on your definition of existence.

I will say as I have said in my earlier post in this thread: This is not the meaning of the story. The meaning is that God did not create evil, evil is just a word used to describe th absence of good. Light and darkness is a metaphor used for its existence/absence properties, not any correlation the words 'light' and 'dark' have to good and evil.

Another thing I wanted to point out is that there must be a source of cold for below zero metric temperature.

Do you mean celsius? Fahrenheit? As with darkness, there is no 'source' of cold. But, neither is it just the absence of 'heat' as darkness is wth light. I explained about temperatures and their derivation in my earlier post:

you can prove there must be a lowest temperature by the very definition of temperature: it is the measurement of thermal energy of a state of matter, characterised by the magnitude of the vibrations of the molecules in that state. So, if the molecules do not vibrate at all, they can't vibrate any less than that can they? Therefore you are at the minimum temperature.

Any questions to this, just ask.

But remember: the whole problem here is the definition of existence. Does something like darkness or 'absolute zero' have existence even if it is just a way of describing an absence of something? A wave is not a material 'thing,' just a description of the way material things move. Darkness and absolute zero are similar descriptions, except that they describe an absence, which is what causes the problem.

After you have sorted that out, you must then decide whether you believe 'evil' to be in this category of merely defining the absence of 'good.' Then some further debates can arise, as to why there is this absence.

 

[spacemonkey]

After reading that little story I'm going to begin worshiping the old sun gods (Apollo, Helios, etc). The Sun is the source of both the heat and light on this planet. Hey, if you think about it most evil things happen at night....

 

[gordon]

Satan is evil. God created Satan to add some spice to people's lives. But if you get to know Satan you'll realise that he's actually very nice. The story is he became thought of as evil by a young boy who received a lump of coal for christmas by this man now known as Satan. This little boy was so appalled by his stocking presents, he decided to rearrange the letters in this man's name and label him with the word "evil". His name was originally Santa so there's no reason to think badly of him anymore.

This story is absolutely true to the best of my knowledge. Gordon.

 

[Darkdale]

I prefer to live beyond good and evil. I don't think either actually exist.

 

[Ormiston]

After you have sorted that out, you must then decide whether you believe 'evil' to be in this category of merely defining the absence of 'good.' Then some further debates can arise, as to why there is this absence.

First off, it's clear that evil exists, at the very least, at a descriptor; a thought. What does evil describe? Actions certainly. Murdering toddlers for pleasure is certainly viewed as evil by almost everyone. Is it fair to describe a person as evil? Everyone has a number of neutral qualities, so no one human could be 100% evil. They could be mostly evil if most of their actions are defined as evil. I've heard Satan described as "pure evil". Does this suggest some quantity that can be atributed to evil? Or can he only do evil? In my opinion, evil only describes actions.

So, are all actions more evil the less good they are? Is making a sandwhich more evil (less good) than giving to charity? I do not think evil is the absence of good. I think they are relative descriptions of activities defined as such by the observer. As such, every action can be described as either good, evil, or neutral, or whatever else they wish to use to describe the action. None are dependant on the others; each is a seperate and unique idea.

So I do think evil exists just as the Catcher in the Rye exists, but I don't think it is the absence of good or God or any other such thing.

 

[Solon]

The only question regarding the question of whether evil exists or not, is simply do Humans exist, and as they certainly do, then Evil always exists and will do as long as Humans exist. End of Question.

Solon

 

[stemann]

I prefer to live beyond good and evil. I don't think either actually exist.

Is that what Nietzsche wrote? Is it good? I agree with you in the objective sense; there is no Good and Evil independent of what humans have labelled as such.

First off, it's clear that evil exists, at the very least, at a descriptor; a thought. What does evil describe? Actions certainly. Murdering toddlers for pleasure is certainly viewed as evil by almost everyone.

First off, it isn't clear that evil exists at all. Just what do you define evil as? What gives you the authority to call someone who murders toddlers for pleasure 'evil' and does not give them the authority to call you 'evil' for not doing as such?

If your answer is 'the majority of the world,' then you believe in moral relativism whereby everything can be sanctioned by the society in which you live. In the olden days, there was nothing wrong with slavery, murder, gladiators, racism, and trillions of other things considered 'evil' nowadays.

Why do you think you are correct in what you class as 'evil'? Or do you accept that there is no Objective basis for morality, and that whatever you think is unjustifiable, but just your opinion?

 

[John Eastern]

The first place you begin to understand evil in the bible is Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of good, and that other thing. Then we have that snake... which was a symbol of what? Any takers? Remember, we're dealing with a paradise here, no death yet, the concept was there but, oh, I'll shut up.

 

[stemann]

Darned right you will.

 

[michel]

Evil is the wrong that man does when he chooses to do wrong by his own free will.

 

[John Eastern]

Um, Michel, don't take this wrong, but you're wrong.

 

[michel]

Um, Michel, don't take this wrong, but you're wrong.

I won't, but why don't you explain why ?