Can "Evil" come from nothing?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Beto
Can "Evil" come from nothing?
Post #1The Christian god supposedly created the Universe (everything?). To some this god didn't create "Evil" but simply allowed it to exist. If this god is the creator of the Universe but didn't create "Evil", than "Evil" appeared by itself from "somewhere" or "nowhere". Either "Evil" is an uncaused cause, like this god itself, or it came from the same place as this god did, a pre-existing platform of sorts. My point is that an omnipotent God, to be such, has to create absolutely everything in existence. From my perspective, there can either be two uncaused causes, or this god had to create everything, "Evil" included.
Post #41
Simon Peter,
I enjoyed the videos. The second one, although ironic, is an accurate reflection of of how some people justify the existence of God.
Much as I personally dislike religion, I can see it fills a need for some people. I certainly wouldn't ban it as I think many people in the world are far from ready to stand on their own two feet, particularly when it comes to being adjusted enough not to fear death (and I believe fear of death - or perhaps the promise of some sort of existence or even 'justice' beyond death - is one of the main reasons we have religion in the first place).
My biggest beef with religion is when it gets forced upon me, either by religion's interference in politics or by some extremist's desire to blow me up for being an infidel (I don't after all wish to blow up the extremist for being a believer).
It also annoys me that religion gets afforded a 'special status' when, basically, it's just an opinion as far as I'm concerned. If, for example, someone draws a cartoon about a politician, it's shrugged off by people, even those whose 'opinion' it has made fun of. Yet religion claims some special status against having its 'opinions' offended. I'm not saying that people should be deliberately disrespectful, simply that I don't see why religion should be afforded 'special status' when it comes to disrespect.
I don't think it exists independently of that relative comparison. The reason some people do evil is because they think there's something to be gained by doing it. Another reason would be due to some sort of mental disorder, but I'm not so sure they're making a conscious decision to do evil in those circumstances or, if they are, they're rationalising it in a different way due to the mental disorders they suffer from.
I enjoyed the videos. The second one, although ironic, is an accurate reflection of of how some people justify the existence of God.
It isn't so much that I don't like to tackle religion empirically, it's just that if religion claims to invoke the supernatural it becomes impossible to tackle it empirically.Simon_Peter wrote: I am starting to understand where HughDP is coming from, you like to derive the metaphorical meaning of religion, rather than trying to tackle it empirically. If that is the case, then we have something in common.
Much as I personally dislike religion, I can see it fills a need for some people. I certainly wouldn't ban it as I think many people in the world are far from ready to stand on their own two feet, particularly when it comes to being adjusted enough not to fear death (and I believe fear of death - or perhaps the promise of some sort of existence or even 'justice' beyond death - is one of the main reasons we have religion in the first place).
My biggest beef with religion is when it gets forced upon me, either by religion's interference in politics or by some extremist's desire to blow me up for being an infidel (I don't after all wish to blow up the extremist for being a believer).
It also annoys me that religion gets afforded a 'special status' when, basically, it's just an opinion as far as I'm concerned. If, for example, someone draws a cartoon about a politician, it's shrugged off by people, even those whose 'opinion' it has made fun of. Yet religion claims some special status against having its 'opinions' offended. I'm not saying that people should be deliberately disrespectful, simply that I don't see why religion should be afforded 'special status' when it comes to disrespect.
Personally, I don't think evil is anything other than a relative evaluation of certain acts when compared to society's prevailing opinions of right and wrong.The original topic was: Can Evil come from nothing.
We have discussed that Evil itself is created by the set of choices that a community makes, but we just assumed that Beto was asking an abstract question.
Is Beto asking: if evil is a real entity that actually exists? And does this entity come from nothing?
Well in one sense there are ceartin types of energy's, electric, gravity, nuclear, electro magnetism. Is evil itself a ceartin energy, does this energy have a purpose, or is this energy randomly effecting people, is evil a negative energy? or a self aware being?
And does this energy exist on its own, or is it created by ourselves?
However if Evil was just negative energy, that randomly effects ceartin characteristics of the human mind, then that should not be called Evil, or should it?
I don't think it exists independently of that relative comparison. The reason some people do evil is because they think there's something to be gained by doing it. Another reason would be due to some sort of mental disorder, but I'm not so sure they're making a conscious decision to do evil in those circumstances or, if they are, they're rationalising it in a different way due to the mental disorders they suffer from.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Roberts)
-
Simon_Peter
- Student
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:32 pm
Post #42
Hey,
I agree, with most of what you say, some people are irrational when it comes to God. And i think this is a fantastic evaluation. Also that "evil is relative evaluation of certain acts when compared to society's prevailing opinions of right and wrong."
So yeah i agree with that. But i don't think religion is needed because people are weak, and cant stand on their own two feet. I think religion tries to guide a person through life, to avoid them from harm, and to be able to live within a community.
I think religion was created because people were living under times of extreme stress, under roman rule. Religion told people to conform to the romans, without making the conformist feel weak. Religion gave them an idea, that submission was the strongest think to do. And their persecutors will be judged. So that meant people would live in harmony, even though, the life they lived, was far from ideal. Its a set of teachings that embraces human flaws, and allows people to co-exist.
Tsar Nicholas I, became the Emperor of Russia. And realized that religion, could be used for that exact same purpose. Completely under the control of the government, the Orthodox Church played an important role in the various russification campaigns (forbidding the use of local languages and the suppression of religious customs). Eventually he was killed in the Russian revolution.
The Tsar empire, was a law unto itself, manipulating the society for a selfish purpose. He wasn't passing laws for the greater good, or improving society. Under the Tsar rule, life, was complete hell for everyone. Creating a dual reality, where the situation benefited the upper class, at the expense of the working class. So was it evil in its purest form, or just human nature to look after one's own self.
So the creation of a super human authority, designed for the lower class. Has its purposes, to just accept tyranny. However religion also had another purpose, the dual reality of religion, is that the, corrupt authority, condones it because it teaches submission. So the authority of the past allowed it to exist. And the lower class, uses it to discuss ethical behavior and unites people to eventually tackle these issues, usually resulting in revolution.
What i do think is wrong with the church is that After Nicholas death, this tyrant was canonized, Saint Nicholas, The Passion Bearer, and is classed as a martyr.
Some people say that Jesus is the cause for all war, but really is that a bad thing?
Peace out.
Simon
I agree, with most of what you say, some people are irrational when it comes to God. And i think this is a fantastic evaluation. Also that "evil is relative evaluation of certain acts when compared to society's prevailing opinions of right and wrong."
So yeah i agree with that. But i don't think religion is needed because people are weak, and cant stand on their own two feet. I think religion tries to guide a person through life, to avoid them from harm, and to be able to live within a community.
I think religion was created because people were living under times of extreme stress, under roman rule. Religion told people to conform to the romans, without making the conformist feel weak. Religion gave them an idea, that submission was the strongest think to do. And their persecutors will be judged. So that meant people would live in harmony, even though, the life they lived, was far from ideal. Its a set of teachings that embraces human flaws, and allows people to co-exist.
Tsar Nicholas I, became the Emperor of Russia. And realized that religion, could be used for that exact same purpose. Completely under the control of the government, the Orthodox Church played an important role in the various russification campaigns (forbidding the use of local languages and the suppression of religious customs). Eventually he was killed in the Russian revolution.
The Tsar empire, was a law unto itself, manipulating the society for a selfish purpose. He wasn't passing laws for the greater good, or improving society. Under the Tsar rule, life, was complete hell for everyone. Creating a dual reality, where the situation benefited the upper class, at the expense of the working class. So was it evil in its purest form, or just human nature to look after one's own self.
So the creation of a super human authority, designed for the lower class. Has its purposes, to just accept tyranny. However religion also had another purpose, the dual reality of religion, is that the, corrupt authority, condones it because it teaches submission. So the authority of the past allowed it to exist. And the lower class, uses it to discuss ethical behavior and unites people to eventually tackle these issues, usually resulting in revolution.
What i do think is wrong with the church is that After Nicholas death, this tyrant was canonized, Saint Nicholas, The Passion Bearer, and is classed as a martyr.
Some people say that Jesus is the cause for all war, but really is that a bad thing?
Peace out.
Simon
-
Simon_Peter
- Student
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:32 pm
Post #44
Hey Beto,
Sorry for the less than prompt reply
Imaginary time, is a mathematical theory to remove paradoxes about the initial event that caused the big bang. The example below is probable solution to how the big bang happened. How could there be an explosion without time as a condition
Imaginary time>>>>>BANG>>>>>>Real Time>>>>>>Human Life
Imaginary time always exists, after the big bang happened, real time begun, the big bang also created a 3D universe, as before the big bang there was no space. Therefore no dimensions. So the big bang created dimensions and space and time. Time is described by the indicators of time, time itself cannot be perceived. Only the effects of time can be witnessed, time itself doesn't exist, its just a human concept to describe the physical world. Humans created the concept of time, so they can also create the concept of imaginary time, just to describe, the interactions and perception of the physical world, I have not come up with this theory someone much more clever than me did.
To be brutally honest, this theory seems overly complex. Why do we need to have imaginary time. Why cant we just say time always exists, rather than having two time lines. One imaginary and one real. Well if we imagine the singularity, a very very tiny piece of matter that is uniform. So it would be a sphere. Much like a planet on a very small scale. We could say that time exists forever it neither begun nor will finish. So its possible to have an event such as the big bang because time always exists. However every scientist in particle physics would disagree. All the laws of physics breaks down at the singularity.
So hence imaginary time, its an elegant theory, it hasn't been proven yet.
Regards
Simon
Sorry for the less than prompt reply
Imaginary time, is a mathematical theory to remove paradoxes about the initial event that caused the big bang. The example below is probable solution to how the big bang happened. How could there be an explosion without time as a condition
Imaginary time>>>>>BANG>>>>>>Real Time>>>>>>Human Life
Imaginary time always exists, after the big bang happened, real time begun, the big bang also created a 3D universe, as before the big bang there was no space. Therefore no dimensions. So the big bang created dimensions and space and time. Time is described by the indicators of time, time itself cannot be perceived. Only the effects of time can be witnessed, time itself doesn't exist, its just a human concept to describe the physical world. Humans created the concept of time, so they can also create the concept of imaginary time, just to describe, the interactions and perception of the physical world, I have not come up with this theory someone much more clever than me did.
To be brutally honest, this theory seems overly complex. Why do we need to have imaginary time. Why cant we just say time always exists, rather than having two time lines. One imaginary and one real. Well if we imagine the singularity, a very very tiny piece of matter that is uniform. So it would be a sphere. Much like a planet on a very small scale. We could say that time exists forever it neither begun nor will finish. So its possible to have an event such as the big bang because time always exists. However every scientist in particle physics would disagree. All the laws of physics breaks down at the singularity.
So hence imaginary time, its an elegant theory, it hasn't been proven yet.
Regards
Simon
Re: Can "Evil" come from nothing?
Post #45It seems to me that evil is more than the "absence of good"; it also involves the act of doing what is contrary to good.McCulloch wrote:I see nothing in the definition of evil that indicates that it is the absence of good. Would 4gold or ST_JB please provide some citation, argument or reason why they believe that evil is the absence of good.
Last edited by atdcross on Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Simon_Peter
- Student
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:32 pm
Post #46
Hey there
Yes i agree, the absence of good, could mean that we have a community of indifference. If someone was murdered, and the whole community had the absence of doing the good thing. They would impartial towards the event. And no investigation or justice would commence for that crime. So in a sense that is evil, through indifference, Also doing the contrary thing to good is also another form of evil.
Regards
Simon
Yes i agree, the absence of good, could mean that we have a community of indifference. If someone was murdered, and the whole community had the absence of doing the good thing. They would impartial towards the event. And no investigation or justice would commence for that crime. So in a sense that is evil, through indifference, Also doing the contrary thing to good is also another form of evil.
Regards
Simon
