Can Good exist without Evil and Evil without Good?

I have to declare , that good cannot exist without evil in a worldly sense, because of the fallen nature of mankind . So being good without evil intent will be laid aside if , and if, and in this statement is far reaching ,and that is, if you recognise that man has a sinful nature and humbly acknowledge that God exists, then good can & will negate the evil that abounds in this world . OK some ,in fact most will say but good exists even if I won't or cannot except a God that allows all manners of evil events , but ,and there is a big but here, that the Lord is the creator of God of good , not evil , and when we ,as humans except that , then at least you will know that good can come out , with evil firmly pushed aside ...Though we all try to be good , evil can be present in most situations whereas folk lose their temper , where would be the good intent of responding to , for instance road rage!

An example of evil ,replacing good ... A soft word turns away wrath , evil can then , if you like be turned on it's head .. The Lord God knows our thoughts before we utter evil things , try to understand that God wants us all to love & respect each other , but sadly most let their mouths vomit out evil thoughts straight from the heart ... Next time that any of you feel aggrieved try the option of turning wrath away and respond in a positive way , It works ...

This is a philosophical question, not a religious one (and I'd prefer philosophical responses to it). But to put it into context I'll use a religious point here. The Bible postulates a time when evil will be completely removed from existence and/or interaction with the rest of life (Satan and his demons restrained in the bottomless pit for all eternity, wicked mankind destroyed...)How can good define itself as good when there is nothing to contrast it against?

How do we know something IS good, if there is not an evil alternative to it that must be avoided? Example: gluttony. How do we know its wrong to overeat, if everyone is fit and healthy?

If there are NO examples of people who overeat, who are chronically obese, and suffering due to it, how do we know its a bad thing to overeat? Without the presence of negative consequences, do good consequences lose some of their value? Is our perception of good heightened by the presence of bad alternatives?

Asked by NanoNano 22 months ago Similar questions: exist evil Society.

In theory, heaven is exactly that. With this caveat: only those who have accepted Jesus' forgiveness of all sin AND the Holy Spirit's renewal and guidance are in heaven. They are then resurrected in a body that no longer has the "old nature" that was corrupted by the body's ancestors, Adam and Eve.

Thus, they are no longer able to do evil that is disobeying God; they also love God and don't want to emotionally hurt the one they love, anyway. That's a fair chunk of conditions for getting good without evil, but that's how God intends to do it.

1 Good question. The purpose for this life is to learn and grow. We are here to know what is good and evil by living this life.

We are here to experience all those things that we cannot know until we have to go through it. As we progress from one type of life to another we will take with us only that which we have learned and experienced. And yes there can be Good with no evil at all and I hope in time we all find it.

That should be the goal of everyone and once you understand and know what this life is and what it is for we all will know. This user has been banned from Askville.

1 Good question. The purpose for this life is to learn and grow. We are here to know what is good and evil by living this life.

We are here to experience all those things that we cannot know until we have to go through it. As we progress from one type of life to another we will take with us only that which we have learned and experienced. And yes there can be Good with no evil at all and I hope in time we all find it.

That should be the goal of everyone and once you understand and know what this life is and what it is for we all will know.

Good question. The purpose for this life is to learn and grow. We are here to know what is good and evil by living this life.

We are here to experience all those things that we cannot know until we have to go through it. As we progress from one type of life to another we will take with us only that which we have learned and experienced. And yes there can be Good with no evil at all and I hope in time we all find it.

That should be the goal of everyone and once you understand and know what this life is and what it is for we all will know.

2 One man's good is another man's evil. Good and bad, or positive and negative, like time and space, belong to the lower dimensional realm. Even an atom of matter, when raised to a higher vibratory rate is dissolved into the one substance out of which all is formed.

Someone said, "Anything that can be separated can't be real. " It is the intellect which sees division so when you get beyond the mental plane you find a oneness to all Life.

One man's good is another man's evil. Good and bad, or positive and negative, like time and space, belong to the lower dimensional realm. Even an atom of matter, when raised to a higher vibratory rate is dissolved into the one substance out of which all is formed.

Someone said, "Anything that can be separated can't be real. " It is the intellect which sees division so when you get beyond the mental plane you find a oneness to all Life.

3 My opinion is that the use of "good" and "evil" as a noun rather than as an adjective is misleading. It's the result of a natural human tendency to reify (that is, to mentally treat relationships as objects in their own right). It's an extremely useful mental heuristic, but it leads to errors in ontology (that is, the classification of things in the world.)For a moment, forget "good" and "evil", and skip to a word with more obvious practical consideration: "better".

"Good" and "evil" have mystical connotations that are hard to get a handle on, but "better" is a word you use many times a day. Several things become clearer. One is that you stop making absolute calls on things.

Choosing the meat loaf over the lasagna for lunch doesn't make the lasagna evil; it's simply that the meat loaf is better. You also start to see things in terms of their relationships. The one-place relations "Good" and "Evil" are less relevant because they're simply tags.

They don't relate anything to anything else. It's simply a pronouncement; it leaves you satisfied that you said something but doesn't drive any decision because it doesn't relate the thing to anything else. Most importantly, though, is that you can expand the relation.

"Better" is not just a two-place relation. You intuitively know to ask what it's better _for_. That is, a hammer isn't a "better" tool than a wrench.

A hammer is better for hammering; a wrench is better for turning things. It's a three-place relation, at least.At this point, we run into the natural human tendency to extrapolate and simplify. The "better" relation is complicated.

We want to know what's "best" and "worst" and forget all of the things in the middle. We know that it's not always possible to do that, but we feel compelled to do it anyway because it makes life so much simpler when we can. Thus, we arrive at "Good" and "Evil": the extension of "better".

A simplification of reality that makes us happy, but also makes us confused because we're over-simplifying real relationships. But it does at least let us answer your question in a more cogent form. "Better", being a two-place relationship, automatically makes something worse.

You can know that overeating is "bad" because it appears on the "worse" side of the relationship compared to eating well, for the purposes of feeling good, looking good, living a long life, etc.When you remove those extra places in the "better" relationship you've simplified your life, but you've also left out crucial distinctions and introduced unnecessary entities. Categorize your world more effectively, drawing the right distinctions instead of the ones that simply appeal, and you draw more useful conclusions.

My opinion is that the use of "good" and "evil" as a noun rather than as an adjective is misleading. It's the result of a natural human tendency to reify (that is, to mentally treat relationships as objects in their own right). It's an extremely useful mental heuristic, but it leads to errors in ontology (that is, the classification of things in the world.)For a moment, forget "good" and "evil", and skip to a word with more obvious practical consideration: "better".

"Good" and "evil" have mystical connotations that are hard to get a handle on, but "better" is a word you use many times a day. Several things become clearer. One is that you stop making absolute calls on things.

Choosing the meat loaf over the lasagna for lunch doesn't make the lasagna evil; it's simply that the meat loaf is better. You also start to see things in terms of their relationships. The one-place relations "Good" and "Evil" are less relevant because they're simply tags.

They don't relate anything to anything else. It's simply a pronouncement; it leaves you satisfied that you said something but doesn't drive any decision because it doesn't relate the thing to anything else. Most importantly, though, is that you can expand the relation.

"Better" is not just a two-place relation. You intuitively know to ask what it's better _for_. That is, a hammer isn't a "better" tool than a wrench.

A hammer is better for hammering; a wrench is better for turning things. It's a three-place relation, at least.At this point, we run into the natural human tendency to extrapolate and simplify. The "better" relation is complicated.

We want to know what's "best" and "worst" and forget all of the things in the middle. We know that it's not always possible to do that, but we feel compelled to do it anyway because it makes life so much simpler when we can. Thus, we arrive at "Good" and "Evil": the extension of "better".

A simplification of reality that makes us happy, but also makes us confused because we're over-simplifying real relationships. But it does at least let us answer your question in a more cogent form. "Better", being a two-place relationship, automatically makes something worse.

You can know that overeating is "bad" because it appears on the "worse" side of the relationship compared to eating well, for the purposes of feeling good, looking good, living a long life, etc.When you remove those extra places in the "better" relationship you've simplified your life, but you've also left out crucial distinctions and introduced unnecessary entities. Categorize your world more effectively, drawing the right distinctions instead of the ones that simply appeal, and you draw more useful conclusions.

4 NanoNano simply put yes there can be good without evil... This user has been banned from Askville.

4 NanoNano simply put yes there can be good without evil...

NanoNano simply put yes there can be good without evil...

Is evil a worthwhile concept - does evil exist as a real entity - can a person or an act rightly be called evil.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.