the need for the existence of evil..

[red5angel]

same thing.

[SevenStar]

I haven't read this thread yet, so this may have been said, but humans are destructive by nature. When you think about it, THAT is what's prevalent in human beings. We are taught how to be nice, but we are born knowing how to retaliate. Order is an ideal of humanity - and even that ideal is driven by destruction. Humans are chaotic by nature, and thus evil is unavoidable.

[red5angel]

I think man's ability to instinctively retaliate is a survival trait. One how reacts violently and instantly to a threat comes out the other end in better shape the one who doesn't. That capacity is not "evil" it just is. As a matter of fact in a discussion of good and evil, I would qualify that as good.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
Better yet: Can God create a rock that is too big for Him to lift?

ultimately, what is that question supposed to prove? Whenever I hear someone talk about the existence/nonexitence of God, that question is asked... Are you trying to prove that he is not actually omnipotent? If that's the case, what would the actual limit of his power be?

[red5angel]

It's not an answerable question. It's posed by those who don't really understand the nature of an omnipotent entity who is all powerful because those who pose it have finite minds and are limited in their ability to comprehend something that is not finite and not limited.

[Ming Yue]

Good and evil are a human construct, not a force.

We're born with the instinct to protect ourselves and then later on we get an idea of why one method of doing so may be socially preferable to another.

we're taught how to get along in society. If we were loners, not responsible to or for one another, the definitions of good and evil would be very different, I think. The definitions would be individual, not biased by a group influence.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by red5angel
It's not an answerable question. It's posed by those who don't really understand the nature of an omnipotent entity who is all powerful because those who pose it have finite minds and are limited in their ability to comprehend something that is not finite and not limited.

Exactly. These questions can't really be answered to any degree of satisfaction by me or anyone else. I can only satisfy my own notions of good and evil and the nature of God to me. It is, as this thread is revealing, very subjective and unique to each individual.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
That's exactly typical of the nonsense that is dualism!

There are more than two options! Free will is freedom to do A or B...? What about L? R? X or Y?! Yeah I'd worked that out! Having been a stalwart listener and writer/singer of punk back in the day...! Nothing else would be so trite!!!

I think someone has said this before, but my statement about needing to have the concept of evil does not preclude the existence of more than two choices, it only states that there is more than one choice.

I guess this also raises the question of the subjectivity of evil and whether it is socially defined, or if it is in fact an absolute.

And as for no choice still being a choice, I do not fully agree with that. There is always the choice to do something, or do nothing. Having no choice, by definition means that there is no choice. You must fall back on the absolute situation where you can choose to do something, or choose to do nothing.

[Yum Cha]

I intellectualised about this as a young man, and it was a great journey...

Eventually, I found somethting that works for me. In my personal interpretation, I believe that everything has a balance, for one to exist, it is defined by the existance of its opposite.

Everything in life boils down to the bell curve. Each end is an extreme, and the greatest balance flucuates around the center point. Like the very model of the cosmos.

Thus true evil exists just about as often as true good, however most of the force pulls towards the middle. We use our experiences with morality and ethical behaviour to moderate the location of that median point. At times we pull it well to the positive, at others to the negative, but the greatest force is towards the middle.

Thus, we are all morally obliged to push that median point towards good in everything we do and our failings are the force that pushes it towards evil. Individually, and collectively.

The battle between good and evil rages on....at least in my interpretation of the universe.

May the force be with you....

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by joedoe
If you think of it from the point of view of free will, then evil is a necessary option, otherwise you do not have any choice other than to do good.

joe, that's saying according to free will if I don't do something evil, then what I'm doing is automatically part of good... which is saying there are two choices and maybe saying there are several non-choices to do good. You're not precluding the existance of more than two choices but by the definition that you have to choose something for it to be good/evil which again is part of the definition of free will, the fact that you've missed out mention of other choices or even non-choices suggests that it is a dualistic statement.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by SevenStar
I haven't read this thread yet, so this may have been said, but humans are destructive by nature. When you think about it, THAT is what's prevalent in human beings. We are taught how to be nice, but we are born knowing how to retaliate. Order is an ideal of humanity - and even that ideal is driven by destruction. Humans are chaotic by nature, and thus evil is unavoidable.

I disagree. It sounds like nitpicking but nature is destructive, not specifically humans. And nor is chaos necessarily bad... that is like the whole of this good vs evil thing. Chaos is bad to those who believe in order.

Plus, I also think people have a capacity to care for things from birth, not only to destroy. Maybe this is driven by selfish instinct (ie the wittle doggy's fur feels comforting), but it's still an instinct. By a similar token, you could say that human's desire to destroy is a desire to simplify their existance (just look at Bush - you're with us or you're a terrorist!) which is a preclusion to order.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
joe, that's saying according to free will if I don't do something evil, then what I'm doing is automatically part of good... which is saying there are two choices and maybe saying there are several non-choices to do good. You're not precluding the existance of more than two choices but by the definition that you have to choose something for it to be good/evil which again is part of the definition of free will, the fact that you've missed out mention of other choices or even non-choices suggests that it is a dualistic statement.

Maybe I did not word it properly, but what I was saying was that for there the be free will there must be the ability to choose. If there is good with no opposite, then there is no choice. Obviously there are varying shades of grey between the two extremes, but there must be the two extremes in the first place.

[Mr Punch]

OK. That makes sense.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
OK. That makes sense.

In future I will try to express myself in English

[Vash]

Evil is the man who rapes children.

Evil is the person who starts wars where none was needed.

Evil is the woman who breaks her children's spirit, who takes their identity.

Evil is the man who beats his wife.

Evil is the unrestrained, absolute expression of destruction - destruction without rebirth.

Evil is the lack of knowledge and the drive to gain such.