Evil maybe dont exist.

[Polycarp1]

Evil is not in-and-of-itself a thing.
Evil is a privation of good. (The absense of a good that should be present.)
This is not unlike cold, which is the absense of heat;
or darkness, which is the absense of light.
So you see, evil isn't so much the opposite of good
as it is the absense of it.

Bricklayer has it in a nutshell here.

"Omnipotence" in the freshman-philosophy sense is an absurdity, as proven by the fact that it leads to paradoxes of the sort "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" Rather, God is self-limiting, that is, there is nothing beyond Him constraining Him; His limitations are ones He imposes on Himself to be who and what He is: the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of beings other than Himself.

God is love. He loves us and desires that we love Him. But a pre-programmed robot cannot love. So He has created us with free will, in a universe with matter and energy.

To understand the implications of this, we can turn to physics. Heat is 'real'; it has a physical referent -- it is how we perceive the motion of matter storing potential energy or receiving kinetic energy. 'Cold' is not real in the sense that heat is; it is the (relative) absence of heat. But for heat to be a meaningful concept, cold, the absence of heat, must exist. One cannot measure the amount of cold something has, one measures the amount of heat. A smaller amount of heat is perceived as cold. But the idea of cold is dependent on that of heat, not the other way around. Similarly, light is how we perceive a range of photons in the visible part of the spectrum. Darkness does not exist independently -- it is the absence of light. God created heat, not cold, and light, not darkness. But for either to be meaningful, its opposite must also exist.

Now, for love to exist, there must be free will, to choose to love or not to love. And for free will to exist, there must be opportunity for meaningful choice. For humans to choose good, evil must exist.

But that does not mean that God created evil. He created good, and He created choice. Evil, like cold and darkness, is the consequence of good being a meaningful concept, something that may be chosen. For someone to choose to love God and do good, the choice to not love God and not do good, hence evil, must exist.

 

[Kaitlin08]

A lot of people talk about evil as if it's a substance or an object, like a glass of water or a desk. It's not that.

I don't think it's necessary to say that evil is a lack of something to make sense out of it, and I question whether this talk about lack really makes sense. The point that I think we should be focusing on is that evil actions usually harm people, directly or indirectly. It's this aspect of harm, which degrades a person in your eyes and sometimes even in theirs, that makes an action evil.

It's not that difficult to tell if an action degrades someone else. Usually, people will be able to tell intuitively whether they're doing the right or the wrong thing.

 

[PeterKovac]

PeterKovac-

Irregardless of the outcome, the mindset of the perpetrators determines whether their acts were evil or not. For example, the Passion and death of Jesus Christ is seen by us Christians as the means whereby we can have eternal life. But Pilate and the chief priests didn't crucify Jesus in order to gain for us salvation. They crucified Jesus in order to (1) silence him and (2) make an example of him as a warning to others not to raise their heads above the crowd.

God used their evil in order to bring salvation into the world. But that did not cleanse them of the evil in their own hearts that initiated their actions. Because their purpose for causing Jesus to suffer originated in motives that were evil, their actions must be seen by others as having been evil, irregardless of the actual outcome.

Who is gonna decide whether what they did was bad or good? His crucyfiction was necessary so somebody had to do that. Do you consider their act as evil even though it brought to you salvation? Would you punish them eternaly? Jesus himself forgave them. They want to silence Him. They actually did the exact opposite. Would it be possible if they didnt kill Him? ...looks like all bad things end up good

Evil is not about 'bad things'

Evil, in many instances more often displays the face of 'I'm so good for you'.

Evil is that which stops others performing otherwise virtuous acts. At one extreme this might be the act of homicide. At the other, the simply act of laughing at a son or daughter's attempts at reading.

Evil is subversive. It attempts to undermined the inherent goodness that exists within humanity. It is narcissistic in that it thinks only of itself.

It is rightly symbolized as a snake for just as a snake will use stealth to remain undetected until the moment it strikes, evil too remains undetected until the awful reality of its presence strikes home with bitter reality.

Evil then is not necessarily equated with criminality. In fact the worst evil is that which is committed with the blessings of otherwise 'good' people more often hiding behind the mask of popularism.

The evil that killed Jesus was not the authorization of the death penalty imposed by Pilate but the silencing of someone who had done nothing other than promote 'goodness'.

Evil does not exposure.

What if I say that all evil as you have described comes from ones immature mind. from ones who are scared of something? Would you agree?

Evil is not in-and-of-itself a thing.
Evil is a privation of good. (The absense of a good that should be present.)
This is not unlike cold, which is the absense of heat;
or darkness, which is the absense of light.
So you see, evil isn't so much the opposite of good
as it is the absense of it.

what if there is always something good in every evil.?

A lot of people talk about evil as if it's a substance or an object, like a glass of water or a desk. It's not that.

I don't think it's necessary to say that evil is a lack of something to make sense out of it, and I question whether this talk about lack really makes sense. The point that I think we should be focusing on is that evil actions usually harm people, directly or indirectly. It's this aspect of harm, which degrades a person in your eyes and sometimes even in theirs, that makes an action evil.

It's not that difficult to tell if an action degrades someone else. Usually, people will be able to tell intuitively whether they're doing the right or the wrong thing.

What if someone who is supposedly harmed doesnt feel to be harmed? For instance what if somebody steals some money from me and I dont care or what if I dont even notice it? Does that act of stealing make the thief evil then?

 

[FreedomKnight]

The simple answer is Evil is the Absence of God, therefore any thing without God or God's attributes is evil. This includes people.
"'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'" - God vs. Science by Albert Einstein 1921

 

[wayseer]

What if I say that all evil as you have described comes from ones immature mind. from ones who are scared of something? Would you agree?

I think in dealing with things like good and evil we are engaging in a cognitive process. Much then depends on description and definition - not always easy.

But evil will, in the end, destroy itself - physically. Why? Because evil cannot differentiate between the object of its destruction and itself. In other words, it will literally cut its nose in spite of its face. Unfortunately, it will cause of lot of suffering in the interim.

what if there is always something good in every evil.?

There isn't any good in evil because evil cannot cognizes 'good'. Evil can only defend its narcissistic belief from any threat to that belief.

What if someone who is supposedly harmed doesnt feel to be harmed? For instance what if somebody steals some money from me and I dont care or what if I dont even notice it? Does that act of stealing make the thief evil then?

Stealing is not evil - it's a criminal offence. Evil more than often than one cares to acknowledge, takes on the personality of justice.

 

[wayseer]

Evil is not in-and-of-itself a thing.
Evil is a privation of good. (The absense of a good that should be present.)
This is not unlike cold, which is the absense of heat;
or darkness, which is the absense of light.
So you see, evil isn't so much the opposite of good
as it is the absense of it.

I see evil as something more than mere 'absence'. Evil is very much 'present' in many 'good' things like justice or good intentions.

When Pilate committed Jesus to death was the act of Pilate 'evil'? The presence of Jesus confirms the presence of 'good' - so 'good' in not absent.

I like you better comment, 'Evil is the privation of good'. The word 'privation' is active which suggest evil is very much present. Pilate was keen to stop the 'good' of Jesus - for his own narcissistic belief in the empire which he represented.

 

[bricklayer]

Another way to look at it:

Evil has nothing in common with God.
If evil were to actually exist, it would have actuality and existence in common with God.

Evil is not in and on itself a thing, it is a privation of good.

 

[MakeStraightTheWay]

The general definition of evil is something that is morally wrong. Therefore, if God says certain things are right and certain things are wrong, then wrong things are evil.

 

[wayseer]

The general definition of evil is something that is morally wrong.

Evil is certainly morally wrong but it is more than simply omitting or committing acts which are morally based.

Therefore, if God says certain things are right and certain things are wrong, then wrong things are evil.

There is the problem with evil - you cannot pin it down so readily as constructing a moral code. The system of sacrifice was meant to overcome this issue but it was a failure which is why God had to intervene.

 

[PeterKovac]

The simple answer is Evil is the Absence of God, therefore any thing without God or God's attributes is evil. This includes people.
"'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'" - God vs. Science by Albert Einstein 1921

Its similar with what I have wrote when I had started this thread. The point is that who can say that in some case its something evil if we dont know everyaspect of it? For instance somebody kills someone. Its bad thing. But the murderer may have feel some sort of relief. So there is a little good in it. At least for him in this moment.

I think in dealing with things like good and evil we are engaging in a cognitive process. Much then depends on description and definition - not always easy.

But evil will, in the end, destroy itself - physically. Why? Because evil cannot differentiate between the object of its destruction and itself. In other words, it will literally cut its nose in spite of its face. Unfortunately, it will cause of lot of suffering in the interim.



There isn't any good in evil because evil cannot cognizes 'good'. Evil can only defend its narcissistic belief from any threat to that belief.



Stealing is not evil - it's a criminal offence. Evil more than often than one cares to acknowledge, takes on the personality of justice.

What I ment was stealing as sin agains one of commandment, therefore evil act.

I see evil as something more than mere 'absence'. Evil is very much 'present' in many 'good' things like justice or good intentions.

When Pilate committed Jesus to death was the act of Pilate 'evil'? The presence of Jesus confirms the presence of 'good' - so 'good' in not absent.


I like you better comment, 'Evil is the privation of good'. The word 'privation' is active which suggest evil is very much present. Pilate was keen to stop the 'good' of Jesus - for his own narcissistic belief in the empire which he represented.

 

[PeterKovac]

The simple answer is Evil is the Absence of God, therefore any thing without God or God's attributes is evil. This includes people.
"'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'" - God vs. Science by Albert Einstein 1921

Its similar with what I have wroten when I had started this thread. The point is that who can say that in some case its something evil if we dont know everyaspect of it? For instance somebody kills someone. Its bad thing. But the murderer may have feel some sort of relief. So there is a little good in it. At least for him in this moment.

I think in dealing with things like good and evil we are engaging in a cognitive process. Much then depends on description and definition - not always easy.

But evil will, in the end, destroy itself - physically. Why? Because evil cannot differentiate between the object of its destruction and itself. In other words, it will literally cut its nose in spite of its face. Unfortunately, it will cause of lot of suffering in the interim.



There isn't any good in evil because evil cannot cognizes 'good'. Evil can only defend its narcissistic belief from any threat to that belief.



Stealing is not evil - it's a criminal offence. Evil more than often than one cares to acknowledge, takes on the personality of justice.

What I ment was stealing as sin against one of commandments, therefore evil act.

 

[Armistead14]

Seems to me the OP is saying choose the lessor of two evils. It doesn't even make sense. Would you say it was OK that millions starve everyday
so others can eat.