[loser]

So, that's like saying that if everything were blue we should, by your argument, understand neither what color is, nor what blue is.

The concept of color only exists because of the spectrum of color. If everything was blue, there would be no concept of color, only blue.

The problems of evils are not reducable to one singular problem, so you're argument is simply irrelevant to much evil

If there was only one evil, then it could be reduced to one problem. Many problems beget many evils. It's relational and very relevant.

Disease and insanity are evils, and yet health and sanity are possible in the total absence of disease and insanity.

Thanks for making my point and actually clarifying it a bit. Sometimes it is wrong to speak in opposites instead of absences. For example, darkness doesn't exist per se; it is only the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat and so forth for. Is evil just the absence of good? I'm not real sure of that, I guess that's debatable.

Furthermore, if your argument were in any way valid, it would imply the existance of only a speck of pain, not the immense amount of pain suffered in the universe. A speck of yellow is all that is needed for an appreciation of blue and of color in generally.

That's totally ridiculous. My argument provides for the existence of every amount of pain imaginable. The spectrum of life, with opposite extremes, becomes neutral in the middle, with every gradation of good and evil between.

Can it seriously be maintained that if an individual were born crippled and deformed and never in his life expeirienced pleasure, that he could not experience pain even if seriously injured?

You're trying to force impossible conditions. How could he be born crippled and deformed if evil (and, therefore, good) didn't exist? Pain as a concept would be non-existent without something to contrast it to (the absence of pain).

It is clear that pain is possible in the absence of pleasure.

But it is NOT possible in the absence of pain (it's opposite). You either feel pain or you don't.

It may well be that it might not be distinguished by a special name and called "pain", but the state we now describe as a painfull state would nonetheless be possible in the total absence of pleasure. So too the converse would apply. Take the pleasures of taste and smell for example. The existance of these pleasures does not rely upon any prior experience of pain.

Pleasure and pain are not opposites. It's possible to experience pain and pleasure simultaneously...ask any masochist or BDSM disciple.

By your argument, if the first thing you ever felt was pleasure, you wouln't think it felt pleasureable as you had never experienced pain and vice versa. Obviously, as I have shown, this is not the case.

I hope I have cleared it up for you.

Let us consider it a eternal cycle of birth and death.

Just as the world turns, everything in life seems to be cyclic. However, this is only in the material world (universe) that we live in. Even scientists who believe everything was formed during the Big Bang concede that the universe may be receding or will eventually recede back upon itself. If life exists outside of our material universe, the laws pertaining to matter may not apply.

I don't know why God would care what happens when we're alive: the party doesn't start till we're dead.

Unless, of course, what happens when we're alive determines our worth to God after life is over. Think of it in terms of social security: not everyone becomes eligible for it and those that do receive varying amounts depending on just how much they paid in.

Lets take the analogy of without evil there is no good..... NONSENSE!!!!!!!! The other options is "indifference". I'm sitting here typing and I don't feel particularly good and I'm not suffering. I just "am". In contrast, if I were to have a few beers, I may feel more pleasure than I currently feel, which is just "normal". I live my life for the most part in this state, as many of us here do when ever we type on Volconvo. I suspect that tonight, (friday night) many of us will be feeling a bit more pleasure as we drink our beers and play on Volconvo or where ever. THe point is there are "degrees of pain and pleasure".

Which was exactly my point! The spectrum of life has oppositre extremes with every variation in between, including your "neutral" state.

Why would a perfect, all mighty creator of the universe, subject us to greater degrees of pain to the point of death, but not provide us with equal degrees of pleasure to the point of death?

Exactly! Life is, indeed, full of degrees.

I know...I got mine in B/S...

I never heard of anyone dying from too much pleasure, but if its possible, thats the way I want to go.

I think it happens all the time and I agree, what a way to go!

So in conclusion, the "without evil, there is no good argument" fails in light of the fact that an all powerful, all benevolent god could stop things like birthdefects, disease, natural disasters etc...

Ironically, this is exactly what the God of the Bible says that He will do...at His appointed time (not ours). The argument stands...indelibly.

We could say, without God, there is no devil and all pain and pleasure is just a result of our evolution.

We can say many things but life doesn't exist because of us but in spite of us.

freedom13 posted:

The Psychology of Self-Justification http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/l.../selfjust.html

Thanks for that.

A&E never existed if Evolution is true (and it is) thus, the A&E story is pointless in this argument.

Your opinion cannot invalidate truth. A&E's existence does not depend on what you think and evolution can be wrong no matter who believes it. Your statement is pointless and without merit.

Please define Satanism, because the Satanism that I know of doesn't believe in a deity called Satan, but rather a force of nature with Pagan roots.

Satan, as defined by the Bible, was an angelic being whose pride caused him to rebel against God. Scripture says this about him:

"...At one time, you were perfect, intelligent, and good-looking.
Eze 28:13 You lived in the garden of Eden and wore jewelry made of brightly colored gems and precious stones. They were all set in gold and were ready for you on the day you were born.
Eze 28:14 I appointed a winged creature to guard your home on my holy mountain, where you walked among gems that dazzled like fire.
Eze 28:15 You were truly good from the time of your birth, but later you started doing wicked things..."

At the moment, he is the primary moving 'force' (spiritual power) that guides mankind upon earth. In effect, he rules the earth and is the source of all evil. His days, however, are numbered.

For more, search the Scriptures using keywords like 'devil', 'dragon', and 'serpent'. You should get a good idea of what freedom13 was saying.

If we get back to your god, who is all powerful, why couldn't he get rid of the satan of the bible?

Wrong question. You should ask, "Why DOESN'T He?".

How does this support any "justification" for the evil (suffering) in the world? Please stick to the subject at hand or stay out of the thread.

I'm getting tired of hearing people tell others to "stay out of the thread". It's a PUBLIC FORUM and EVERYBODY has the right to express their opinions, right or wrong, topically or not, even you pricks who say things just as that. Shut up already with your bigoted demands.

That's your opinion, that's not debating.

Debating is nothing but opinions. Good grief! Do you see anyone debating if George Bush is president? No, because it's a fact and hardly debatable. However, asking if Bush is a 'good' president is very debatable and in the realm of opinions, though those opinions may indeed be based on facts.