There can be no light without the dark.....right?

[cottage]

My point was to point out why and where you are wasting your energies. I have nothing to gain from this; it was done, believe it or not, for your benefit.

I don't play idly with concepts anymore. Concepts are not reality. Also, it's plain from your latest post that you've either ignored or misunderstood what I posted; and someone as bright as you seem to be doesn't misunderstand unless he wants to. So, I'm wasting my time.

Good luck to you.

You are not wasting your time since you obviously have something to say and I'm certainly prepared to hear what you have to say.

You say 'concepts are not reality' - and of course you could be right (which is not to say that self-evident truths don't apply). But in that case you might want to explain what your understanding of reality is?

 

[Tom Terrific]

You are not wasting your time since you obviously have something to say and I'm certainly prepared to hear what you have to say.

You insist that evil exists independently of good, while I insist it does not. Our assumptions are incompatible, so there is no basis for discussion.

 

[look3467]

You insist that evil exists independently of good, while I insist it does not. Our assumptions are incompatible, so there is no basis for discussion.

If I built a bridge over a wide span that would be good, wouldn't it?
But, If I, the builder do not give it a weight test (Evil, because it is in opposition to the strength of the bridge) how would I tell whether my work was good?

Therefore, from the same builder both darkness and light are his to manage.

One can not be without the other, otherwise there is nothing created.

Reason why as gods we were/are subjected to vanity is so that in the midst of it we made learn to do good.

Good is created from something that is not good, otherwise good is good, no variance.

How good is good? Compared to what?

Blessings, AJ

 

[cottage]

You insist that evil exists independently of good, while I insist it does not. Our assumptions are incompatible, so there is no basis for discussion.

But it would seem that yours is the unfounded 'assumption' and it is based on ideology, ie religious belief, whereas I and another poster have given you a logical demonstration that what you call 'good' is logically dependent upon its opposite in order for it to be intelligible. Your ideological argument is basically a theodical answer to the Problem of Evil, advanced by the likes of St Augustine and others (evil a privation of 'good), and it shares the same difficulty as other PoE aplogetics, decending into absurdity or self-contradiction.

And so once again, there is no state of ‘goodness’ because ‘goodness’ isn’t a state but a mere term, and it is a term that exists solely to recognise and identify the existence or absence of evil. There is no such thing as ‘goodness’, independent of badness or evil. If that analysis is incorrect then please show how it is incorrect?

 

[Meow Mix]

Just to split hairs for fun, darkness is actually not required for light since photons are bosons and therefore not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle and so can fill all of space in principle without counter-acting degenerative forces.

So, technically, darkness isn't required for the light

 

[Tom Terrific]

But it would seem that yours is the unfounded 'assumption' and it is based on ideology, ie religious belief, whereas I and another poster have given you a logical demonstration that what you call 'good' is logically dependent upon its opposite in order for it to be intelligible. Your ideological argument is basically a theodical answer to the Problem of Evil, advanced by the likes of St Augustine and others (evil a privation of 'good), and it shares the same difficulty as other PoE aplogetics, decending into absurdity or self-contradiction.

And so once again, there is no state of ‘goodness’ because ‘goodness’ isn’t a state but a mere term, and it is a term that exists solely to recognise and identify the existence or absence of evil. There is no such thing as ‘goodness’, independent of badness or evil. If that analysis is incorrect then please show how it is incorrect?

I really do not want to continue this. My only reason for responding is that you continue to make the same glaring error, confusing words with the realities they attempt to describe.

You have spoken of knowledge, above, as though it is based in language -- which is pure moonshine. Communication could not exist if knowledge were based in language, because each individual has his or her own reference set. Where does meaning come from? Language is based in knowledge, not the other way around; so you must ask where such knowledge is located.

You don't want to go down this road; I appreciate that. It would lay waste to your intellectual security. But it's inescapable. You either accept that knowledge pre-exists the language we use to describe it, or you end up by concluding that, not only do you know nothing, you *cannot* know anything. And from there it's just a short step to questioning your identity and the meaning of your own life.

Perhaps it's not a kindness to tell you these things. I'll leave the discussion here. Do what you will.

Good luck to you.

 

[blackout]

Just to split hairs for fun, darkness is actually not required for light since photons are bosons and therefore not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle and so can fill all of space in principle without counter-acting degenerative forces.

So, technically, darkness isn't required for the light

Hey Meow,

From a non-scientific, strictly observational point of view
it seems to me that darkness is the default state of things,
in that if there is an abscence of photons (light),
the 'default' is darkness.

Light/photons can 'burn out',
but the darkness is ever there as the natural default.
Nothing can turn it off, or burn it out,
and once the photons (and the eyes of observer)
are gone
there again is the natural state of darkness
as it first was.

Is it somehow true in scientific terms
that darkness is the 'primary' state of the Universe?

Do the things that create photons, come from (out of ) the darkness itself?

I doubt if I ever understood the source or causation of the existence of photons.
(the big bang maybe? but what caused that?)

Layman's terms would also be great.

 

[cottage]

I really do not want to continue this. My only reason for responding is that you continue to make the same glaring error, confusing words with the realities they attempt to describe.

You have spoken of knowledge, above, as though it is based in language -- which is pure moonshine. Communication could not exist if knowledge were based in language, because each individual has his or her own reference set. Where does meaning come from? Language is based in knowledge, not the other way around; so you must ask where such knowledge is located.

You don't want to go down this road; I appreciate that. It would lay waste to your intellectual security. But it's inescapable. You either accept that knowledge pre-exists the language we use to describe it, or you end up by concluding that, not only do you know nothing, you *cannot* know anything. And from there it's just a short step to questioning your identity and the meaning of your own life.

Perhaps it's not a kindness to tell you these things. I'll leave the discussion here. Do what you will.

Good luck to you.

Earlier I spoke of descending into absurdity and that is precisely where your reply has led you. You say words are subsequent to reality (which of course they are), but you’re using that truism as an argument to dismiss words as representing reality while in the same breath calling upon language to argue for reality! As with the rest of us, you are here, on this site, because you have something to say, something to communicate to others that you believe to be the case. But when faced with the logical (illogical) conclusion of your argument you presume to shut the door on the use of language, blithely unaware of the consequences for your own position.

You maintain, using language, that there is an independent state of ‘goodness’. You must know what you mean by that since you cannot believe a thing to be what it is without having an understanding what it is. So, let me ask you a very straightforward question: What is ‘good’?

And I’m not expecting ‘kindness’ from you, just interesting discussion. So please, if you don’t mind, may we have less of the quasi-mystical, superior tone?

 

[connermt]

Because we are made in God's image "as gods" we are subject to all the vanity in the world.
Now, religion is a quest to reach God with whatever means are available at the time, be it the stone henge age, the biblical age and today's variety of religious beliefs.

The good religions can only be infiltrated by the vanity of mankind, thus the problem addressed as to the bad religions.

Evil potential will always be with us while in the flesh, but afterwards, none.

Blessings, AJ

Good points. Still selfish, but good points :yes:

 

[glyphkenn]

Hey Meow,

From a non-scientific, strictly observational point of view
it seems to me that darkness is the default state of things,
in that if there is an abscenceh of photons (light),
the 'default' is darkness.

Light/photons can 'burn out',
but the darkness is ever there as the natural default.
Nothing can turn it off, or burn it out,
and once the photons (and the eyes of observer)
are gone
there again is the natural state of darkness
as it first was.

Is it somehow true in scientific terms
that darkness is the 'primary' state of the Universe?

Do the things that create photons, come from (out of ) the darkness itself?

I doubt if I ever understood the source or causation of the existence of photons.
(the big bang maybe? but what caused that?)

Layman's terms would also be great.

Wow nicely said . I've been trying to explain that even the bible seem to say that in the beginning . I'm adding your words to my info bag .

 

[Meow Mix]

Hey Meow,

From a non-scientific, strictly observational point of view
it seems to me that darkness is the default state of things,
in that if there is an abscence of photons (light),
the 'default' is darkness.

Light/photons can 'burn out',
but the darkness is ever there as the natural default.
Nothing can turn it off, or burn it out,
and once the photons (and the eyes of observer)
are gone
there again is the natural state of darkness
as it first was.

Is it somehow true in scientific terms
that darkness is the 'primary' state of the Universe?

Do the things that create photons, come from (out of ) the darkness itself?

I doubt if I ever understood the source or causation of the existence of photons.
(the big bang maybe? but what caused that?)

Layman's terms would also be great.

I agree with darkness being "default" considering it is defined as a relative absence of light. However, I'm not sure if it's the primary state of the universe to lack photons (if we're talking about total darkness here, e.g. no light whatsoever). That's a tough question to answer because we don't know if the universe had a beginning state or not -- it may not have began to exist at all, for the Big Bang Event could have merely been the beginning of a state of the universe rather than the existence of the universe.

From what we do know about events shortly after the Big Bang event, though, the visible universe would have been opaque with so much light because of the unimaginable temperatures, pressures, and interactions between early matter (such as quark-gluon plasmas -- not a layman's term, but "early matter" works for that ). However, there still would have been space between photons which might be interpretable as the "presence" of darkness -- but not absolute darkness.

As for photons coming out of the darkness -- sure, actually. Particle-antiparticle pairs come in and out of existence all the time in the vacuum (in such a way that preserves the total energy of the universe, though), especially photons (which are their own antiparticle). Whether or not this phenomena has anything to do with the primary or fundamental state of the universe in terms of darkness or light, though, I don't know -- because it would require a knowledge of whether the photons were first or whether the vacuum (and darkness) were first (and possibly both always existed); a veritable "chicken and egg" problem.

 

[look3467]

Science explains to a degree the wonderful works of the creator. Be it one believes in a creator.

The terms "light and Darkness" are used both in the realm of science to show division.

Also used in scripture in the realm of the spiritual.

Now, we can argue all day on the science of light and darkness, which I believe is for our entertainment: To wonder, to research and find answers.

But in the spiritual, "darkness" is non scientific for it is merely using layman's terms to denote a lack of........knowledge of the spiritual.
Where "light" is a revelation of.........knowledge of the spiritual.

The whole theme of the bible is light revelation. Take away the spiritual out of the bible and what do we have? The works of mankind.

The works of God is light (Spiritual revelations) where there was none. (Darkness a lack of)

The discussion should rather be on the spiritual end of the terms "light and Darkness" and how it relates to mankind as a whole.

Blessings, AJ

 

[glyphkenn]

Science explains to a degree the wonderful works of the creator. Be it one believes in a creator.

The terms "light and Darkness" are used both in the realm of science to show division.

Also used in scripture in the realm of the spiritual.

Now, we can argue all day on the science of light and darkness, which I believe is for our entertainment: To wonder, to research and find answers.

But in the spiritual, "darkness" is non scientific for it is merely using layman's terms to denote a lack of........knowledge of the spiritual.
Where "light" is a revelation of.........knowledge of the spiritual.

The whole theme of the bible is light revelation. Take away the spiritual out of the bible and what do we have? The works of mankind.

The works of God is light (Spiritual revelations) where there was none. (Darkness a lack of)

The discussion should rather be on the spiritual end of the terms "light and Darkness" and how it relates to mankind as a whole.

Blessings, AJ

Sooooo all the brilliant people doing all the wonderful research into unlocking the questions of the universe is useless. The bible has figured it all out for us six or seven thousand years ago. How about all the research in medicines ? Also useless , when God say it's your time to go it's your time right . It's become very popular these days to blame religion for all the Problems of the world . But religion is in the unquestionable ,and once there you get blamed for stuff. Science is swiftly approaching the unquestionable and so is politics . It is our job as humans to question and question again everything. Make them prove everything over and over again . Even our laws should be reevaluated ever so often . We are changing all the time. People are loosing respect for religion because there's no research ever to prove any of that crap. Study to show yourself Prof . I slightly changed that verse ,but you do it all the time.

 

[look3467]

It is our job as humans to question and question again everything. Make them prove everything over and over again . Even our laws should be reevaluated ever so often . We are changing all the time. People are loosing respect for religion because there's no research ever to prove any of that crap. Study to show yourself Prof . I slightly changed that verse ,but you do it all the time.>>>glyphkenn

I agree with you on your quote above. As for losing respect for religion, well, many will, regardless of time in human history.

Sooooo all the brilliant people doing all the wonderful research into unlocking the questions of the universe is useless.

No, not useless but complimentary of the creator being cognoscenti in the field of the sciences.
Were it not for the human desire to seek answers, what entertainment would we have?

When I see the stars, the moon, planets and how they are so methodically arranged, when I see the cosmos in the micro organisms and wonder at its magnificence, it's design, is purpose, I can not but believe in a creator so wonderful and loving to even think of me sharing in all that beauty for a brief life time of mine.

Study to show yourself Prof . I slightly changed that verse ,but you do it all the time.

Wonderful that you can take a verse out of the bible for your own use.

And yes, it's true that one should study so when asked "If one believes in God" one should be ready to respond.

Blessings, AJ

 

[glyphkenn]

I agree with you on your quote above. As for losing respect for religion, well, many will, regardless of time in human history.



No, not useless but complimentary of the creator being cognoscenti in the field of the sciences.
Were it not for the human desire to seek answers, what entertainment would we have?

When I see the stars, the moon, planets and how they are so methodically arranged, when I see the cosmos in the micro organisms and wonder at its magnificence, it's design, is purpose, I can not but believe in a creator so wonderful and loving to even think of me sharing in all that beauty for a brief life time of mine.



Wonderful that you can take a verse out of the bible for your own use.

And yes, it's true that one should study so when asked "If one believes in God" one should be ready to respond.

Blessings, AJ

Most believers in god are only ready to offer lip service. Whenever they are put in a position to prove their belief they take it. Say get sick ,lets say cancer , not wishing anything, here is a great chance to show the power of god. Stay home and pray? No way . Its all lip service .

 

[Tom Terrific]

Earlier I spoke of descending into absurdity and that is precisely where your reply has led you.

I made the mistake of getting involved in this discussion, and now I bear some responsibility for the consequences of my statements--which is to say, some responsibility to you. I wish I hadn't said anything in the first place.

All attempts to define reality are absurd. Words and concepts cannot define anything; they can only attempt to describe. That's an important distinction.

You say words are subsequent to reality (which of course they are)...

No, I said words are subsequent to knowledge.

...but you’re using that truism as an argument to dismiss words as representing reality while in the same breath calling upon language to argue for reality!

I dismiss words as defining reality. I do not call upon language to argue for reality, but use language to demonstrate language's own absurdity.

As with the rest of us, you are here, on this site, because you have something to say, something to communicate to others that you believe to be the case. But when faced with the logical (illogical) conclusion of your argument you presume to shut the door on the use of language, blithely unaware of the consequences for your own position.

Oh, that's rich. I can't count how many times I've had this discussion. I am more aware of the consequences of my position, and yours, than you are. I don't say this to make myself important; this discussion is very tedious to me because in all the years I've had it I have made very little headway with the people I've talked with. People who think as you do have a lot to lose by sacrificing their point of view. I used to think it was important to try to help them; not so much anymore. Everyone will get where they need to, eventually, whether I try to help them or not.

You maintain, using language, that there is an independent state of ‘goodness’. You must know what you mean by that since you cannot believe a thing to be what it is without having an understanding what it is.

That's exactly backwards, and that's your problem. You think your word games constitute knowledge. On the contrary, you cannot have an understanding of what something is without first believing in it.

So, let me ask you a very straightforward question: What is ‘good’?

I can't define it. I might be able to describe it, though not definitively. I can offer some examples fairly readily.

Let's start with you. You are good.

And I’m not expecting ‘kindness’ from you, just interesting discussion. So please, if you don’t mind, may we have less of the quasi-mystical, superior tone?

Whether you expect kindness or not is irrelevant; it is my responsibility. And if you don't like my tone, don't talk to me. I don't want to play ego games but neither will I pretend that I consider your point of view as valid as mine or that I think you cling to it out of some virtue like intellectual integrity. I do not believe I am superior, but I certainly believe my viewpoint is. If you don't like it, then, as I say, don't talk to me.

Finally, I think "interesting discussion" is often nothing more than intellectual self-pleasuring and a waste of time. The search for truth is serious business, not a casual pastime or ego-stroking exercise.

 

[cottage]

I made the mistake of getting involved in this discussion, and now I bear some responsibility for the consequences of my statements--which is to say, some responsibility to you. I wish I hadn't said anything in the first place.

All attempts to define reality are absurd. Words and concepts cannot define anything; they can only attempt to describe. That's an important distinction.

You bear no responsibility to me (what’s with all this personal stuff, anyway?) but only to yourself, for your statements and arguments. And we have language and concepts regardless of whatever is meant by ‘reality’. A square is defined by language and symbols and cannot be other than a four-sided polygon with right angles and sides of equal length. And whether or not there is any such thing as reality in which good or evil, light and darkness or geometric squares can exist, those things are none the less intelligible; good and evil are opposites but necessarily correlated only where evil is instantiated since ‘good’ is simply ‘no evil’, and nothing can be evil and not evil at the same time, and a square cannot have fewer or unequal sides. But all that apart, we also have an understanding of good and evil quite regardless of our ability to express those things in words or by any conceptual meaning. Even a newborn child knows when it is suffering or in want of comfort, and likewise it is made obvious when its needs are being met. So my foregoing argument stands, good and evil are opposites but ‘good’ is just the logical consequent that is no evil.

No, I said words are subsequent to knowledge.

So, you are saying there is knowledge? Please enlighten me.

I dismiss words as defining reality. I do not call upon language to argue for reality, but use language to demonstrate language's own absurdity.

With respect you came to this discussion to argue an explicit point, using language:“Good and evil are not opposites; that misconception may be the root of the conceptual problem. Evil is the absence of good, not its opposite.” But now you want to dismiss all discussion on the basis that language is absurd, which must absurdly include your own argument

Oh, that's rich. I can't count how many times I've had this discussion. I am more aware of the consequences of my position, and yours, than you are. I don't say this to make myself important; this discussion is very tedious to me because in all the years I've had it I have made very little headway with the people I've talked with. People who think as you do have a lot to lose by sacrificing their point of view. I used to think it was important to try to help them; not so much anymore. Everyone will get where they need to, eventually, whether I try to help them or not.

Forgive me, but what you are saying amounts to nothing at all!.

That's exactly backwards, and that's your problem. You think your word games constitute knowledge. On the contrary, you cannot have an understanding of what something is without first believing in it.

You cannot believe what cannot be believed, and therefore you must have an understanding of what it is you believe.

I can't define it. I might be able to describe it, though not definitively. I can offer some examples fairly readily.

Let's start with you. You are good.

You are saying nothing. So what is ‘good’ about me (or anthing, come to that)?

Whether you expect kindness or not is irrelevant; it is my responsibility. And if you don't like my tone, don't talk to me. I don't want to play ego games but neither will I pretend that I consider your point of view as valid as mine or that I think you cling to it out of some virtue like intellectual integrity. I do not believe I am superior, but I certainly believe my viewpoint is. If you don't like it, then, as I say, don't talk to me.

Finally, I think "interesting discussion" is often nothing more than intellectual self-pleasuring and a waste of time. The search for truth is serious business, not a casual pastime or ego-stroking exercise.

You appear to believe you are privy to special knowledge not available to the rest of us, loftily informing me with an assumed authority that ‘The search for truth is a serious business’. Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t know how you can speak like that, unembarrassed and with no sense of irony.
The ‘kindness’ you speak of is also shamelessly false because the ‘ego-stroking’ you speak of applies just as much to you as it does to me or anyone else, which is why you return again and again to answer my responses. That’s the old human ego at work.
And surely you see the reason I’m talking to you is because I disagree with your viewpoint. I wouldn’t be talking to you at length, if at all, if we agreed.

 

[look3467]

Most believers in god are only ready to offer lip service. Whenever they are put in a position to prove their belief they take it. Say get sick ,lets say cancer , not wishing anything, here is a great chance to show the power of god. Stay home and pray? No way . Its all lip service .

Dealing with God requires faith in Him, after that one is open to His blessings. Be it instant or in time.
Because : Psa 27:14 Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.

here is a great chance to show the power of god.

Here's what they said of Him: Mat 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

"If", ..."Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe".

Is it not similar to your comment "here is a great chance to show the power of god"?

Did they believe? No!

So your question was the same as posed by the priests and the scribes: Mar 15:31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.

With some, there is no change today.

Blessings, AJ

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There can be light without dark, however because dark IS the absence of light one can suggest that it is the variance in the amount of light that is called dark... so for their to be no dark there needs to be no variance in the amount of light, no gradients, all must have the same intensity of light. In such a situation there can also be no shadow.

However light and dark is a poor metaphor for good and evil; it assumes to begin with that there is an objective morality where good and evil opposites, it also assumes that evil is the absence of good; though at least there is some degree of the ability to measure light intensity to make up for morally 'grey' areas. Light also has an origin, another reason it is a poor metaphor, as this assumes that good also has an origin. Perhaps this appeals to some theists, however to suggest that goodness originates from some 'god' is to discount the goodness in the people around us, who choose to do good things, it is not because god inspired the goodness, it was the human CHOICE to do good. Likewise evil has no origin, evil is about choices, we aren't made to do 'bad' things, we choose to.

Good and evil are largely subjective, for example some people may call an action good while others may call it evil - it depends on whether or not the individual perceiving that action perceives that the outcomes of that action are desirable (or at least preferable to the alternative outcomes) and perhaps whether or not the action itself conforms to the individual's perception of desirable modes of behaviour (if they put value not just on the ends but also the means).

It is our intelligence, our capacity to choose what we want to do, to identify the possible outcomes of that choice and how it may effect others, including how those effects may be perceived by others, as well as our capacity to then choose whether or not to mitigate the negative outcomes of our actions; which determines the morality of our actions. Attributing a source to either good or evil is a moral cop out.

 

[look3467]

Good and evil are opposites as night and day.
The bible explains good and evil as knowledge of, thus given; the ability to exercise it, rests with human intelligence.
Human intelligence makes us as gods to know good and evil.

How would a god be able to exercise good if there is no counter? I mean what would there be to measure goodness? Against what, the same?

If there was no hate to distinguish what love is, how strong is love?

Against what odds are we willing to go against to demonstrate our love?

There is no getting away with saying "Good and evil are not opposites" because they are.

Now, understand that the creator is both ruler of the night as well as the day. In that respect there are no opposites.

But one must realize that there is no test with the creator, therefore are no opposites.

But with us, by necessity there must be, otherwise, we wouldn't be as gods.

Blessings, AJ