Good without evil

[littletherese3]

What do you think:

In this world we live in right now:
If there is no evil at all, would good still be considered “good” or would it just be neutral?

In other words, does “good” need to be contrasted in order to have meaning itself?

Sorry if that is confusing wording

 

[spockrates]

What do you think:

In this world we live in right now:
If there is no evil at all, would good still be considered “good” or would it just be neutral?

In other words, does “good” need to be contrasted in order to have meaning itself?

Sorry if that is confusing wording

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

(Genesis 1:8)

I suppose that depends on one’s view of how God rolls. If Genesis is a literal creation (where there was no badness at the beginning, including no death) then one might be right to conclude that goodness can indeed exist without evil.

 

[CB_Catholic]

What do you think:

In this world we live in right now:
If there is no evil at all, would good still be considered “good” or would it just be neutral?

In other words, does “good” need to be contrasted in order to have meaning itself?

Sorry if that is confusing wording

No. God is good. There is no evil in Him. God exists as He is (I Am Who Am) and there is no need to have a contrast for God in order for Him to have meaning.

 

[seagal]

What do you think:

In this world we live in right now:
If there is no evil at all, would good still be considered “good” or would it just be neutral?

In other words, does “good” need to be contrasted in order to have meaning itself?

Sorry if that is confusing wording

In heaven there is no evil, does that mean there is no good either? Evil is the absence of good, so good doesn’t need evil to exist. It’s true, though, that sometimes we humans need to experience evil, at some level, in order to appreciate good; we need the dark to appreciate the light. The good and the light still exist whether we appreciate them or not.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What do you think:

In this world we live in right now:
If there is no evil at all, would good still be considered “good” or would it just be neutral?

In other words, does “good” need to be contrasted in order to have meaning itself?

Sorry if that is confusing wording

Good question. In order for anyone (except, likely, God) to *experience *goodness as goodness, there has to be evil as a contrast. That said, I am not at all sure that the knowledge of goodness as goodness is necessary to the experience of happiness. That would be a very deep question to explore.

A metaphor: Because fish are always in the water, and have no other context from which to see water, they have a much more limited understanding of what water is. Likewise the person who lived in a sea of goodness. But we need not know something discursively to experience effects which flow from it.

Spockrates,

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

(Genesis 1:8)

Good point. This seems to imply that He knew evil, so that He would know what good was, right? But this makes perfect sense, because God knew the future, so He did know evil.

An alternate view: When God said it was good, He was saying (in essence) that it WAS. Being is good. This is equivalent to the Platonic view of the good, in which all that is is good, and everything that is not good does not truly exist, insofar as it is not good. There are problems with this view, but I think it is one of the most profound thoughts any human being has ever thought.

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Phillipians 4:8

 

[06convert]

Good always exists, Good describes all of God’s creation. Evil is just the absence of it.

Evil depends on good. But good does not depend on evil.

 

[littletherese3]

I appreciate all your replies, but what I really meant was *right now in this world, * not in heaven or before the fall or anything, but right now. I know that it isn’t realistic at all, I’m just wondering.

 

[littletherese3]

A metaphor: Because fish are always in the water, and have no other context from which to see water, they have a much more limited understanding of what water is. Likewise the person who lived in a sea of goodness. But we need not know something discursively to experience effects which flow from it.

Spockrates,

Good point. This seems to imply that He knew evil, so that He would know what good was, right? But this makes perfect sense, because God knew the future, so He did know evil.

An alternate view: When God said it was good, He was saying (in essence) that it WAS. Being is good. This is equivalent to the Platonic view of the good, in which all that is is good, and everything that is not good does not truly exist, insofar as it is not good. There are problems with this view, but I think it is one of the most profound thoughts any human being has ever thought.

Ex*actly * my thoughts

 

[spockrates]

Ex*actly * my thoughts

Yes, I agree with Prodigal that God knew what was good before there was evil with which to compare it. However, I might be wrong, for the angels might have fallen before the human race also fell. Then again, there was a time before the angels rebelled, I guess, so God might have created them good, too. But I can think of no biblical passage where God called the metaphysical creation before the physical one good.

That being said . . .



If there were no good without evil, then we could not say God was good before either fall, could we?

The next question, I suppose, is this: Is God intrinsically good, or merely relatively good?

Hmmmm

 

[seagal]

The next question, I suppose, is this: Is God intrinsically good, or merely relatively good?

Hmmmm

The question after that would be, relative to what? The answer is, you can’t compare God to anything else so the qualifier “relatively” doesn’t apply.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Good always exists, Good describes all of God’s creation. Evil is just the absence of it.

Evil depends on good. But good does not depend on evil.

A+ on that one!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If there were no good without evil, then we could not say God was good before either fall, could we?

This is the difference between ontology and epistemology, isn’t it? Could there be a particle that we could not possibly observe, nor infer? Yes, of course there could. Well, then there could be something good that we could not possibly know to be good.

Evil may be necessary to the human concept of “good”, but it is not necessary to the existence of something good.

 

[seagal]

  			Originally Posted by **spockrates** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6054269#post6054269)

Yes, I agree with Prodigal that God knew what was good before there was evil with which to compare it

I don’t agree that God “knew” what was good. God **is **good, so everything that comes from him is by definition good. The word “good” in this case is not an adjective or description of God, it is a definition. In other words, “good” is not what God is like, “good” is what God is.

I think it’s an error to assume that in order for something to exist, the opposite also has to exist (like good/bad, light/dark). If there was absolutely no evil in the world, everyone and everything would be good. It’s true that we probably couldn’t appreciate how good it is, but that wouldn’t change it.

 

[spockrates]

The question after that would be, relative to what? The answer is, you can’t compare God to anything else so the qualifier “relatively” doesn’t apply.

Is it possible to imitate someone without comparing oneself to that someone?

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-3)

Hmmmm

 

[spockrates]

This is the difference between ontology and epistemology, isn’t it? Could there be a particle that we could not possibly observe, nor infer? Yes, of course there could. Well, then there could be something good that we could not possibly know to be good.

Evil may be necessary to the human concept of “good”, but it is not necessary to the existence of something good.

Yes! It’s a new twist on the old question:

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I suppose one might ask,

If God was when no one evil was there to compare with Him, was He good?

 

[seagal]

Is it possible to imitate someone without comparing oneself to that someone?
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-3)Hmmmm

You’ve twisted the premise. You asked if God was relatively good, meaning that he is good as compared to something else. That is not the same as comparing ourselves to God and imitating Him. In the second case, God is the model to which to be compared. In the first case, something else is.

 

[seagal]

Yes! It’s a new twist on the old question:

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I suppose one might ask,

If God was when no one evil was there to compare with Him, was He good?

See my answer in post #10.

 

[Mijoy2]

Very good question. I know this is a very good question because some questions are not good and others not as good and some are downright evil, so this question, in contrast, is very good.

I’ve contimplated this too, many times and in many ways. i.e. How can heaven be a place of good if there is no bad/evil? How do we accomplish good works in heaven if there is no need for good works since all is good?

how do I feed the poor if there are no poor?
how do I cloth the naked if there are no naked?

If there is work to be done, this inherently means something is lacking.
We state in order to find true happiness we must deny ourselves for the sake of others. But what if others have no needs?

This is indeed confusing.

 

[seagal]

Very good question. I know this is a very good question because some questions are not good and others not as good and some are downright evil, so this question, in contrast, is very good.

I’ve contimplated this too, many times and in many ways. i.e. How can heaven be a place of good if there is no bad/evil? How do we accomplish good works in heaven if there is no need for good works since all is good?

how do I feed the poor if there are no poor?
how do I cloth the naked if there are no naked?
If there is work to be done, this inherently means something is lacking.

There would be no need to accomplish good works in heaven. Evil will have been vanquished, there is no more poverty, sickness, infirmities of any kind. There is nothing lacking in heaven.

We state in order to find true happiness we must deny ourselves for the sake of others.

That only applies while we live on earth, not when we’re in heaven. If we manage to reach heaven, that is our reward for having done everything we should have on earth.

 

[Mijoy2]

There would be no need to accomplish good works in heaven. Evil will have been vanquished, there is no more poverty, sickness, infirmities of any kind. There is nothing lacking in heaven.
That only applies while we live on earth, not when we’re in heaven. If we manage to reach heaven, that is our reward for having done everything we should have on earth.

Yes, I understand, but it begs the follow-up question - What then will we do? I realize this goes under the classification of “it’s a mystery”. What I wonder is, why has the answer to this been kept a mystery and not revealed to a greater extent?