Re: The Non-Existence of Evil - The Ultimate Pure Argument

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Stuart ( on August 25, 2002 at 05:58:57:

In Reply to: The Non-Existence of Evil - The Ultimate Pure Argument posted by Anon on August 23, 2002 at 19:48:15:

Let us examine the actual words of the Prophet:

"The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual."

By this is meant not "intellectual" but "abstract", or "of the mind". The line should read:

""This subject is difficult. Human beings are of two dimensions: physical and abstract, those aspects perceptible to the senses and those that are not, such as ideas, and linguistic elements (words that characterize a person, such as "good".)""


"Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible."

Not bad, but again should read:

""Things which are perceptible are those which are perceived by the various human sensory inputs, notwithstanding that human senses are extremely limited compared to mechanical sensors and the sensory systems of many animals and insects; thus those outward existences which the human eyes see are visual, that which the ears hear are called audiory; that which the mouth tastes are "interpretations of the mouth and tongue's sensory inputs; the nose, olfactory, the skin, tactile. "Time" is measured by clocks but is not "real" in the same sense as the visual. "Time" is a psychological sense; as is music. Sound is "real" but the composition of sound into music is psychological. Hot and cold are relative terms, not real, as are darkness and light. But life and death are "states" of being and there is no scientific understanding of what makes a thing alive and what makes it inert or dead. Abstractions are "things" conceptions of the mind. But many argue that everything - every thing - is a conception of the mind, limited by the brain's capacity to interpret signal input, and that what appears real, is not. For example, the solidity of steel is belied by the fact that if we emppy the space between the nuclei of its molecules and its surrounding electrons, to our own eyes, a ball of steel would disappear. Ninety percent of all "matter" is empty. Mind itself is an abstract thing which has no outward existence. Whereas Brain is real - it can be weighed, touched and its electrical and other activity measured. A "thought" however has yet to be seen or touched or weighed. Yet, in cognitive psychology, thought are taken as "things". All man's characteristics and qualities form both a physical and abstract existence.""


"Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence."

This is nonsense and would be better written as:

""Briefly, the abstract or intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of humans, exist only in relative terms and are the result of perception, culture, world-view, geography and education. By themselves, they do not exist - neither good nor evil, light or dark, emptiness of fullness. Evil is simply a concept, and applied to human behavior purely relative (what is good for one is bad for another and vice-versa.) So ignorance is the abstract opposite knowledge, which is relative and abstract (a smart person for one is an diot for another.) All these opposites have no physical, "real" existence.""


"In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence--that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength."

This is absurd and insulting to a rational mental process. It should read:

""Sensed realities are absolutely relative and despite our ability to sense them as physical, our senses interpret reality and therefore what is real for us is interpretively real and may not exist at all. Evil is another relative and abstract non-real concept; blindness is the inability to see what the non-blind see; deafness is filled with noise but not the sounds we hear; poverty is true wealth for many cultures and socieities; illness and health are bot illusions since we are born to die and we all suffer from dying, from the moment we are conceived to the moment our human bodies cease apparent function; and weakness is often the greatest strength, just as cowardice is a quality of courage. And none of these "things" have their own intrinsic "reality".


"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind--that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements--that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good."

Very poorly written and not a good example of the point made, but we shall leave it alone, rendering it intelligent would be a waste of time.

Next, the most interesting:

"The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting."

This should read:

""A "thing" in relation to another "thing" may be evil, and at the same time by itself, merely "is". There is no evil in existence; all that God created He created neither good or evil. This evil is nothingness, just as goodness is nothingness, both the "good" person and the "bad" person are good and bad to separate audiences. When humans are no longer aalive, they are considered dead. But in fact, form is all that exists, pre-life and after-life. Light and dark are both non-existing things. For some darkness is true light, and light is God's for ignorance - the more we see, the less we know.""


"Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent."

More of the absurd. This should be written as:

""It is therefore a Truth that all "things" perceptible or abstract, are psychological, relative and abstract. There is no evil and there is no good. One person strives for evil does good;; another strives for good and achieves evil. This is without any possibility of dispute. But in the end everything is nothing while nothing is everything; the universe is both infinite and infinitesimal, especially in the Mind of God.""

--- The Reader must note that I have merely scientifically updated the Holy Text to make the point that Evil is not real and added that neither is Good. You cannot have one and deny the other; you can psychologically and relatively have both; you can realistically have neither. In fact, the relativism of goodness and evil is what allows people to kill each other without remorse. Every killer believes in his or her own righteousness. Repentance for killing is a pretend behavior for the Court.

Next: The Truth.

this topic is closed - post at