FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Absence of God, Presence of Evil, and Visa Versa

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


laurenrox
Okay, this is relating to a thread that went on a VERY long time ago about how evil is the absence of good/God. The thread eventually got into the arguement about whether or not Einstein was atheist. But before that particular arguement came up, someone asked, "Why is evil the absence of good/God? How do you know that good isn't the absence of evil?"

Well, that's the question I wanted to answer. I've actually taken the time to think this out and I can find nothing wrong with it as of yet... Which is why I'm putting it up here. I want to see if my "theory" (put rather loosely) can stand up to the test or not. Here goes...

By physical law atoms, molecules, and energy are naturally chaotic and random. And by definition evil usually involves some sort of disaster, one way or the other, and disaster employs chaos and randomness. In order to maintain control and to set things into a certain order, we must exert energy and force (in this case, "good" being that certain force, act, or point of achievement). Without that "good" the "evil" would continue as it usually would, however that may be under the certain circumstances.

So, if "evil" can only exist if the "good" is not present to destroy or get rid of it (assuming it succeeds), then evil must be the absence of good.
Indi
laurenrox wrote:
By physical law atoms, molecules, and energy are naturally chaotic and random. And by definition evil usually involves some sort of disaster, one way or the other, and disaster employs chaos and randomness. In order to maintain control and to set things into a certain order, we must exert energy and force (in this case, "good" being that certain force, act, or point of achievement). Without that "good" the "evil" would continue as it usually would, however that may be under the certain circumstances.

So order (or any force that causes order) equals good, and chaos (or any force that causes it) equals evil?

So a dictator that crushes all opposition, fiercely reigns in the population, locks them down under strict and overbearing rules to control them and keep them in order... is good?

What about a force that destroys all life in the universe by freezing every single subatomic particle in place - thus introducing strict order, destroying all randomness and chaos... in effect "pure goodness"?

Also, i challenge this: "by definition evil usually involves some sort of disaster, one way or the other" By whose definition? The only definitions of evil i know of usually involve suffering, not disaster. Sometimes disasters can decrease suffering (global warming on a frozen planet would increase farmland and the ease of growing crops, no?). And, indeed, without some disaster to cause suffering... how could there be anyone to alleviate it, and thus do good?
cody4camp
quote=dudeOkay, this is relating to a thread that went on a VERY long time ago about how evil is the absence of good/God. The thread eventually got into the arguement about whether or not Einstein was atheist. But before that particular arguement came up, someone asked, "Why is evil the absence of good/God? How do you know that good isn't the absence of evil?"

Well, that's the question I wanted to answer. I've actually taken the time to think this out and I can find nothing wrong with it as of yet... Which is why I'm putting it up here. I want to see if my "theory" (put rather loosely) can stand up to the test or not. Here goes...

By physical law atoms, molecules, and energy are naturally chaotic and random. And by definition evil usually involves some sort of disaster, one way or the other, and disaster employs chaos and randomness. In order to maintain control and to set things into a certain order, we must exert energy and force (in this case, "good" being that certain force, act, or point of achievement). Without that "good" the "evil" would continue as it usually would, however that may be under the certain circumstances.

So, if "evil" can only exist if the "good" is not present to destroy or get rid of it (assuming it succeeds), then evil must be the absence of good./quote


god =good evil=devil Smile
Bikerman
cody4camp wrote:
quote=dudeOkay, this is relating to a thread that went on a VERY long time ago about how evil is the absence of good/God. The thread eventually got into the arguement about whether or not Einstein was atheist. But before that particular arguement came up, someone asked, "Why is evil the absence of good/God? How do you know that good isn't the absence of evil?"

Well, that's the question I wanted to answer. I've actually taken the time to think this out and I can find nothing wrong with it as of yet... Which is why I'm putting it up here. I want to see if my "theory" (put rather loosely) can stand up to the test or not. Here goes...

By physical law atoms, molecules, and energy are naturally chaotic and random. And by definition evil usually involves some sort of disaster, one way or the other, and disaster employs chaos and randomness. In order to maintain control and to set things into a certain order, we must exert energy and force (in this case, "good" being that certain force, act, or point of achievement). Without that "good" the "evil" would continue as it usually would, however that may be under the certain circumstances.
Well, there's your problem, right there. Smile
They could be chaotic in which case they would not be random. Chaos and randomness are not the same thing. Also, we should either talk about matter (atoms, molecules etc) or talk about energy - they are interconvertible but it get's confusing to talk about both in the same way...
Let's move on...
First problem;
If evil usually involves some sort of disaster (and I don't actually agree that it does), then you are saying it sometimes doesn't. You can't build a useful theory like that - it has to work for all cases, not just some.
Next problem :
Disaster does not necessarily 'employ' randomness (let's leave chaos out of this until you understand it a bit better). Many disasters are predictable (deterministic).
Next problem:
Exerting force or energy on atoms and molecules does not decrease their randomness. The randomness of atoms is a feature of the quantum world - the uncertainty principle. It means that the more exactly you know the position of a sub-atomic particle, the less exactly you know it's momentum (and vica-versa). This does not change if you apply energy to the system (you could do so, for example, by heating up the atoms).
Imagine a block of ice - stable, solid, molecules held in a fairly rigid crystalline structure. Now heat it up. You get water - less stable, molecules sliding over each other. Heat it further - you get steam. Gasseous, molecules flying all over the place.
I am tempted to get into a discussion about entropy - but let's save that for another time.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.