Does evil exist?

Originally Posted by Time

Its only evil, because we say its evil.

Yes, I get the whole labeling thing.
Your original statement says we create evil by labeling it such.
You did not say we create the label or the concept of evil.
The whole reason why acts are labeled evil is because there is a group acceptance of thought that has labeled the action as evil.

Regardless of what one calls the act, the act is still deemed evil/bad/immoral/negative/unwanted/etc.
The actual acts are not created when the labeling is done as your original statement says or implies (as I could be reading it differently from you).
The act has already occured, has already manifest. The labeling comes after.

Before language, was it totally acceptable go around murdering each other?

Simple, its only natural, because we use natural things to create.
We are nature, but what we do with it isnt natural.
Its only natural in the sense we are natural, and make it out of natural things.

I don't get this Time. How can we be nature, but what we(nature) create isn't natural?
Is not everything created, is not everything that is manifested in the physical realm, are not all of these things made from the same elements?
A spider makes a web, is the web unnatural, seeing as a spider has taken natural substances , food, and transformed it into web?

war is just out instinct to protect our territory, and what we do with it is seen as evil (in our minds, and yes I agree), but that doesnt make war itself evil. Only we see it as such.

And I agree with you in part. Evil is a label. But the act, regardless of the label, is it not this that humanity desires to eradicate in order to create autopian world of love

Only we see it as such.

This is the part I do not agree with. The act of war is not undesirable because we label it as evil.
The act of war is undesirable because we innately know it is, not because we labeled it evil.
Labeling, language is used to communicate what we see and feel in our being.

Let me clarify. Nature is a perpetual web of organisms thats only prupose is to contiue its own esistance. That means wiping out billions of lifeforms, changing itself over and over and even goign as far as freezing the planet soilid. Saying that most things are evil, is saying nature is evil. And something that isnt human, cannot be itself evil, only perceived as such by us, nothing else.

I for one do not label nature as evil, so I'm not sure who you are referring to.
Again, I agree with you about evil is just a label, but this brings me back to your original statement of, "We create evil by labeling things as such."

Im not special. Im only a tiny, infinitesinaly small speck compared to the rest of the universe, the same as everything else on here.

Ah, well, so you are not awed by the universe?

No, science does in no way shape or form say that " god did xxx", if anything science is proving our monotheistic gods non existance.

Actually, science does not say anything. Science is a tool of people.
People interpret the results from science experiments and it they who say god is or god isn't.

Of course the brain is natural, but what we do with the natural world, cannot be relicated by nature, therefore, unatural...

~ponders~...nope, I seriously cannot fathom how you can say humans are of nature, but things we do are unnatural.
Why can a spider make something, why can oxygen and hydrogen make water, but poor old humanity, as soon as they make a ham and cheeze toastie, you caterorize it as unnatural, just because other natural being cannot make it?

All faith is, is believing is something that has no proof.

Depends on the context the word is used in.
"I have faith my son/dawta will succeed."
"I have faith in god."
The former is belief and trust in the abilities of someone, and the proof or disproof will occur in the future.
The latter is a dogmatic and unchangable belief that god exists, regardless of proof or disproof in the future.

There is a big difference between the "flat earth" theory, and math observations, and conclusions that havv ebeen around for thosuands of years, and/or modern ones that have yet to be broken down, which are the ones I stated

Yeah, and Newton's maths was the king of physical reality for 300 years, until quantum theory shown that there's more to reality than the math explained.
All knowledge is temporary stops on an endless journey of new discoveries.

His theory wasnt fully proven. The only way it was proven is because it was put through the paces of scientists working with his equasions and perfecting them.. hence, repeat, repeat, repeat...

Wasn't proven, but eventually was...yeah great. Don't see the point of saying it wasn't , then was.
All knowledge is temporary stops on an endless journey of new discoveries.

IF you are responding to me, even in the tone, of a friendly debate, it is still aruging my beliefs, therefore my god.

Nope. I do not bother trying to prove or disprove god.
If you percieve that is what i am doing when I make enquiries, when I explore your theories, then by all means Time.
I stopped the whole prove/disprove thing a long time ago regarding god and the source of creation, but I do not stop exploring.

I have not read the 19 pages in this thread as it would take most of the day, so forgive me if I repeat what has already been said.

There is a saying Demon est Deus inversus or good and evil are two sides of the same coin.

Thus we are forced either to accept the emanation of good and evil, of Agathodaemon and Kakodaemon as offshoots from the same trunk of the Tree of Being, or to resign ourselves to the absurdity of believing in two eternal Absolutes!

Is an action evil when it teaches that it only leads to misery so that in future a person will never do it again?

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

I'm struggling to see an answer here Humm.
The only thing I can see is this; the ability to perform evil acts comes from Love, which is the Manifest Creation.
Capitolized, so i gather it's just another version of god. The updated and improved age of enlightenment version.

Look, I know to you, you have answered my question, but to me, you haven't.
To me, you expounded more on what this new version of god is, but you haven't addressed why we can perform evil acts.
You state evil acts are performed due to ignorance of the innate love of our being.
I assume love empowers us to perfom good deeds.

My question is looking at it this way; if we are love, we perform good, but if we are ignorant of this love, we perform evil.
If we are ignorant of our love power, how does that disengage this love power, for surely evil acts do not manifest from love?
If it doesn't disengage it, the evil acts are empowered by this innate love.
If it does disengage it, then what empowers us to perform evil?

The perfect questions AC, as usual.

Let me just state here with crystal clarity that my personal view on this is a hodge podge of conjecture, reasoning, and faith. That might be quite apparent to you, but I want to ensure you know it is apparent to me. I realize the fact that it makes perfect sense to me is no proof - but you asked, so I'll tell you.

This all comes out of a series of experiences I had about back around '98. Expanded consciousness, OBE, cosmic unity - the gamut. You could say I experienced 'God', such as it is. It's the only way I could describe it. This has firmly entrenched my view in the theistic camp - not that I believe in a personal God per se, though I do believe God can manifest in different aspects - that everything is, actually , manifested from the same source, as I have been trying to explain.

The experiences were overwhelmingly experiential, not intellectual. This means that while I was left with a powerful 'sense' of the Divine, understanding was really at an emotional level. Afterward, I had many questions.

For instance, "Why?" is still open. 'For Love' is fine in an emotional sense, but only whets the appetite of the mind. So I ask the question, why, if an omnipotent God can instantly create anything, does it go to the trouble of the universe at all? What could the end-game of going through process be when you already have instant access??

My answer comes out of considering my original experiences and the many general spiritual tenets in accordance with my experience I have researched and verified since my experience.

IMO, the one thing God cannot simply Will into existence is a fully individuated consciousness. To be fully individuated, the individual must choose to do so - you cannot dictate free will, it must be offered, and it must be chosen. The alternatives must be clear, but coercion is cheating - and will only result in failure. Free will means we must be free to tail too - not to is to make free will meaningless.

Of course it's not that simple - it is a long process, with a complex support structure and many possible tangents and side paths - but ultimately, I think that is pretty spot on. The spiritual path is a realization of our true origin and dimension - where we go from there I don't know.

But that is how evil can come out of Love, and why all is exactly as it is supposed to be even with all that is wrong with the world, and why suffering exists (and ecstasy) and why science as it is will never prove the existence of God, even though His existence is right at the tips of our fingers.

Originally Posted by Humm

IMO, the one thing God cannot simply Will into existence is a fully individuated consciousness.

That puts a limit to God who is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps God is not a 'creator' that many believe All That Is to be.

Originally Posted by Bluegreen

That puts a limit to God who is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps God is not a 'creator' that many believe All That Is to be.

The word 'Omnipotent' is a conceptual construct, manufactured by simply naming a list of tasks, the automatic answer to each being 'can do that'.

That said, through the process of individuation, He is doing just that...

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

Yes, I get the whole labeling thing.
Your original statement says we create evil by labeling it such.
You did not say we create the label or the concept of evil.
The whole reason why acts are labeled evil is because there is a group acceptance of thought that has labeled the action as evil.

There is no difference between saying we create evil my labeling, and creating the label of "evil". ITs a human construct.

Regardless of what one calls the act, the act is still deemed evil/bad/immoral/negative/unwanted/etc.
The actual acts are not created when the labeling is done as your original statement says or implies (as I could be reading it differently from you).
The act has already occured, has already manifest. The labeling comes after.

Yes the act has occured already, but it isnt anything until we call it something. If someone murders, say, a pedophile for going after their kids, mst people would say it wasnt evil, if anything they would say you got rid of it, yet, you murder someone for say, looking at you the wrong way and its evil? That is a double standard. That is why its only evil if we call it such, because it depends on what view you have on the matter.

Even simpler. An animal killing another animal isnt evil.....

Before language, was it totally acceptable go around murdering each other?

Actually, even with language it was acceptable killing people. Human sacrifice? Animal sacrifice? We still do it, just with a double standard. You can join the army, and kill the "evil" that we deem as such. Cops have a right to assault protesters that are sitting there with a huge can of mace, or blind people with rubber bullets, yet we STILL try to justify to our kids that murder is bad (except if you are in the army, or a cop)?? Even in our religions murder was accepted to some degree. Im sure to the cannonites, the jews were pretty evil comming in and wiping them out because their god said so.

I don't get this Time. How can we be nature, but what we(nature) create isn't natural?
Is not everything created, is not everything that is manifested in the physical realm, are not all of these things made from the same elements?
A spider makes a web, is the web unnatural, seeing as a spider has taken natural substances , food, and transformed it into web?

Once again, show me anywhere in nature where you can get tv, internet, a house, paper, religion, condoms, money, cars, trucks, plastics, styrofoam, processed meat, genetically modified foods... If it doesnt esist IN nature, its synthetic/unnatural.

The thing about spiders is that there are animals who make THEMSELVES from their own bodies, very similar material. We dont spin TVs out of our butts after eating :P


And I agree with you in part. Evil is a label. But the act, regardless of the label, is it not this that humanity desires to eradicate in order to create autopian world of love

This is the part I do not agree with. The act of war is not undesirable because we label it as evil.
The act of war is undesirable because we innately know it is, not because we labeled it evil.
Labeling, language is used to communicate what we see and feel in our being.

War itself cannot be evil because it cant think for itself. Only what we do with it can be deemed good r evil, and even that is still a slippery slope. War is our human adaptation forfighting for territory. Plants do it, animals do it, bacteria does it, untill it reaches an equilibrium. Even then the ebb and flow is still one thing gaining the upper hand, while one doesnt, and vice versa,

I for one do not label nature as evil, so I'm not sure who you are referring to.
Again, I agree with you about evil is just a label, but this brings me back to your original statement of, "We create evil by labeling things as such."

I never meant you as in YOU, you as in anyone but me, in a general use.

Ah, well, so you are not awed by the universe?

Quite the contrary. Just because i tend to think criticaly, and not as much god, god, god, doesnt mean that im not in awe of the universe. Its quite the opposite, the truth is much more interesting then fiction

Actually, science does not say anything. Science is a tool of people.
People interpret the results from science experiments and it they who say god is or god isn't.

You have to understand, "proven" from a scientific perspective. It usually means a theory, that has again and again, stood up to scrutiny, and peer evaluation. Sure it may change, but that doesnt mean that everything we know scientificaly is wrong, and was. We still use math over 3000 years old, and have proven astronimical movements that ancient civs seen with the naked eye, we still use achitectual and plumbing tech thats thousands of years old.....

~ponders~...nope, I seriously cannot fathom how you can say humans are of nature, but things we do are unnatural.
Why can a spider make something, why can oxygen and hydrogen make water, but poor old humanity, as soon as they make a ham and cheeze toastie, you caterorize it as unnatural, just because other natural being cannot make it?

Because you cant grow a tv, or half the things we make. There is a line, and jsut because we see ourselves as outside the natural world doesnt mean we are IMO. Its a conundrum, true, but the line is very profound

Depends on the context the word is used in.
"I have faith my son/dawta will succeed."
"I have faith in god."
The former is belief and trust in the abilities of someone, and the proof or disproof will occur in the future.
The latter is a dogmatic and unchangable belief that god exists, regardless of proof or disproof in the future.

It is still belief in the unknown

Yeah, and Newton's maths was the king of physical reality for 300 years, until quantum theory shown that there's more to reality than the math explained.
All knowledge is temporary stops on an endless journey of new discoveries.

His math wasnt proven wrong, only that it was just a piece of the puzzle. Most of his math is still sound, and taught and elaborated on. All quantum theory proved is that there is underlying chaos, in the universe we see as "perfect", like physics.

Wasn't proven, but eventually was...yeah great. Don't see the point of saying it wasn't , then was.
All knowledge is temporary stops on an endless journey of new discoveries.

ITs the same theory, most of the time it just takes someone else to fill in the blanks. Due to the severe peer evaluation in science, its hard to prove anything, so of you say for example "the sky is green", with no proof it wont be believed. You have to go into it further, which can take beyond the lifetime of one person.

Nope. I do not bother trying to prove or disprove god.
If you percieve that is what i am doing when I make enquiries, when I explore your theories, then by all means Time.
I stopped the whole prove/disprove thing a long time ago regarding god and the source of creation, but I do not stop exploring.

Then take out "god" and put in paradigm, then we have a discussion

Originally Posted by Humm

The word 'Omnipotent' is a conceptual construct, manufactured by simply naming a list of tasks, the automatic answer to each being 'can do that'.

That said, through the process of individuation, He is doing just that...

So is thinking of a personal God a conceptual construct, don't you think?

Consciousness is going through the process of becoming individuated, yes, but He still did not create individuated consciousness. Perhaps that was a decision he made? But why have consciousness go through the laboriously painful process?

Originally Posted by Bluegreen

So is thinking of a personal God a conceptual construct, don't you think?

Consciousness is going through the process of becoming individuated, yes, but He still did not create individuated consciousness. Perhaps that was a decision he made? But why have consciousness go through the laboriously painful process?

I do not pretend to presume on His desires or methods - I'm just trying to make sense of it, the same as anyone else.

What fits what we do know? That's all I'm going from.

Originally Posted by Humm

I do not pretend to presume on His desires or methods - I'm just trying to make sense of it, the same as anyone else.

What fits what we do know? That's all I'm going from.

Isn't that what we all try to do: make sense of it all?

It started to make more sense to me when I let go of the concept of an anthropomorphic god, a personal god who most people think is a better human than they are although all powerful.

So long as we think of a personal god, it is easy to blame him for our woes for isn't he all powerful?

I make no presumption of knowing what God is.

It seems to me God leaves up to us who is responsible - for I see all manner of decisions around me.