Evil is not absence of good

[LethalMouse]

Lets forget RoB and focus in the argument.

Could you please comment on my postpost.

Did you see my post about “the Bible says so” and “the Quran says so”???

How can someone argue a point within the confines of rules they don’t agree with??? If you change the rules, then in most circumstances we all agree with you. You state that there are flaws with US but you fail to admit we can be right with OUR rules.

LethalMouse: Bahman is correct within his rules if his rules are correct. However, I disagree with his rules.

Bahman: Catholics are incorrect because they do not realize the rules that are truth.

You see? I am addressing your argument and even giving you credits, whereas you are simply in a roundabout way saying we are all lacking in the knowledge you possess.

 

[MT1926]

That is when problem appear. Sacred tradition cannot possibly be 100% correct in interpreting Bible since church assembly is made of human who could do mistake. Why does Bible written in non-literal way?

I don’t understand how I could pass this test. Could you please elaborate.

That’s the point you can’t. The only way to pass the test is if I personally tell you which word is being stressed or if I leave someone in charge of my words to tell you which word I intended for future readers to know I stressed. That is why the only way the Bible could be properly understood is if Christ left someone in charge to tell us when he was speaking literally and when he was speaking figuratively. In a way you actually agree with this when you say the church is made up of humans who could make mistakes. Exactly, but what you seem to disregard is Sacred tradition is handed down from Christ and the Apostles.

 

[LethalMouse]

Also, As to SilverShadow’s mention of preaching vs seeking… I am leaning toward the idea you are doing more preaching than seeking If you are on CAF asking the Catholic view then you should at least be able to entertain the ideas here. If you come from a point of immovable belief…you can do nothing but preach

 

[MT1926]

I didn’t ask you that neutral state does not exist. All I asked is that where is the flaw in my argument?

That is my point “neutral” is the flaw in your argument.

Here is your argument.

So lets assume that there exist an Absolute Good. Then there are actions which are less good. We can sort these actions on a line depending how good they are. So now we reach to a point to believe evil is real or not. If we accept evil then we are dealing with a line which is start with Absolute Evil then less evil etc. Our line look like thus Absolute Evil in one end and reach to Absolute Good on the other end. I can represent it as following: Absolute Evil<--------->Absolute Good. The problem however is what is the point at which the action is neither evil or good? This means that there should exist a point in the middle of this line which is neutral so our line look like this “Absolute Evil<----- neutral---->Absolute Good”. Now how is the situation when Evil does not exist? Our line look like this: neutral---->Absolute Good. We have neutral point on our line since it refer to action that it isn’t good et all.

You are “assuming” there is a point in which Evil or Good do not exist. I don’t agree. So I said:

Sorry Bahman I don’t agree. Your assumptions are flawed because you are asking us to accept something that you can not prove, their is no such thing as neutral. Also, the lack of being able to prove a neutral leads us to agree more with my theory that we start with Absolute Good and as we start to lose the good we approach evil. However, at the same time it is impossible to prove an absolute evil because we have no way of knowing if good can come of this evil say 100 years down the road. Thus I conclude and agree with you that evil is not the absence of good, because good is our starting point and is always present even in the smallest percentages.

Your response:

This is not really a fair answer.

I am more than willing to respond to any objections you have regarding my objections to my response, Heck I was even willing to meet you half way:

Thus I conclude and agree with you that evil is not the absence of good, because good is our starting point and is always present even in the smallest percentages.

However, to say I am being unfair because I don’t agree with you is basically reaffirming what LethalMouse said:

Also, As to SilverShadow’s mention of preaching vs seeking… I am leaning toward the idea you are doing more preaching than seeking If you are on CAF asking the Catholic view then you should at least be able to entertain the ideas here. If you come from a point of immovable belief…you can do nothing but preach

 

[SilverShadow22]

Let me quote from Geneses 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. We know today that earth was from from the dust left from a supernova explosion. What is the church position on this.

Tell me where the supernova obtained the form and matter and energy to explode in the first place.

And no, we don’t ‘know’ that, it’s a guess, just like all the other theories ‘science’ throws around like they are proven facts.

 

[LethalMouse]

Let me quote from Geneses 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. We know today that earth was from from the dust left from a supernova explosion. What is the church position on this.

Look up who came up with the big bang theory and you can find your answer (hint, it was a catholic priest)… oh dang I gave it away.

We are allowed the big bang theory

 

[Bahman]

Tell me where the supernova obtained the form and matter and energy to explode in the first place.

Tell me where has infinite power from? I think the fair position is to say that we don’t know.

And no, we don’t ‘know’ that, it’s a guess, just like all the other theories ‘science’ throws around like they are proven facts.

I don’t think that your position toward science if fair. Look at things around you to realize that we still were living in gave without science.

 

[AndrewW94]

What do you mean with due good?

from: <Google>

Due. adj.

1. of the proper quality or extent; adequate.

Think of the eye vs the ear in someone whose eyes are defective and thus is blind. We can easily distinguish between the lack ability to see in the eyes and the lack of this same ability in the ears. Since this ability is not proper to the ears, it is not a “due good” that is missing, while for the eyes it is.

It’s not my idea, so you should be able to find quite a lot written about it.
For example, Google gives: <Google>

Some quotes:

“For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing.” <newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm>

“In fact, evil is simply a privation of something which a subject is entitled by its origin to possess and which it ought to have, as we have said. Such is the meaning of the word “evil” among all men. Now, privation is not an essence; it is, rather, a negation in a substance. Therefore, evil is not an essence in things.” <dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#7>