Imagine a deep calm sea, no perturbation anywhere. Now imagine that this sea is disturbed. So now there will be crests as well as troughs.
Now the question is: can there be any crest without any trough?
That means there cannot be any good without any evil;
There cannot be any love without any hate;
There cannot be any compassion without any cruelty;
There cannot be any joy without any sorrow;
There cannot be any beauty without any ugliness;
There cannot be any justice without any injustice;
There cannot be any greatness without any meanness;
There cannot be any life without any death;
There cannot be any virtue without any vice;
There cannot be any morality without any immorality;
There cannot be any theist without any atheist;
Etc.
Deep calm sea without any perturbation is the state before the beginning of the universe. Beginning of the universe will bring everything along with its own opposite.
Endnote: For my new articles please see my new website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com
God is real 
This article is excellent in pointing out the dualities of life. An excellent book on this topic is by Esther Harding, one of Dr. Carl Jung’s first generation disciples, and is called _Psychic Energy: It’s Sources and It’s Transformation_. I can recommend it highly.
LikeLike
While I believe many of those statements to be valid, they are not all valid. Case in point;
You can in fact have a theist without an atheist, just because there is nobody to dispute the belief in a god, doesn’t prevent an individual from believing in a god. More valid would be that you can’t have an atheist without a theist.
You can have life without death, just because the notion/concept of death doesn’t exist (immortality), doesn’t mean that the immortal beings cease to have life. A more valid statement would be that you can not have death without life, as there has to have been life in order for there to be death.
Sorrow is not necessary for there to be joy, joy can exist outside the existence of sorrow. You can experience the joy of music, singing, dancing, love, the presence of family, etc., etc., without there having to be the existence of sorrow. You don’t have to experience sorrow in order to experience joy, albeit you probably couldn’t experience sorrow without having experienced joy, so a more valid statement would be there is no sorrow without joy.
Cruelty is not required for there to be compassion, compassion can exist outside the existence of cruelty. People can extend compassion to others without there having been any instance of cruelty involved, just as there can be cruelty without the existence of compassion (as history has shown us many times). Cruelty and compassion are not mutually inclusive, each can exist without the other existing, albeit empathy has to exist in order for both compassion and cruelty to exist, for without empathy one would not conceptualize the existence of cruelty nor the ability to exhibit compassion.
And you can in fact have love without there being hate, you don’t need there to be hate in order for love to exist, and likewise you don’t need love to exist in order for there to be hate, each can exist without the other having to be manifest. You can love someone, or not love them, without there having to be hate, just as you can hate someone, or not hate someone without there having to be love. In fact you can love someone while hating them at the same time, one is not required for the other to exist.
LikeLike
Suppose no one on this earth has ever believed in any god or in any supernatural being. In that case, will there ever be any atheist on the earth? No.
That means only theistic beliefs can beget atheistic non-belief. Without theism atheism cannot flourish.
LikeLike
+sekharpal That is exactly my point, unlike your article that said the complete opposite when you posted “There cannot be any theist without any atheist”, which is a completely invalid statement.
As I said in regards to your origi9nal post of “There cannot be any theist without any atheist”, You can in fact have theists without there being any atheists, not having anyone to oppose the belief in a god does not prevent an individual from believing in a god. I further pointed out that a more valid statement would be “you can’t have an atheist without a theist”.
Your statement in your article that “There cannot be any theist without any atheist” projects the notion that if there were no atheist, if everyone was a theist, then there would be no theists, which is completely invalid and false statement. However there can be no atheists if there are no theists, as atheists would not have a believed god for which to deny the existence of or not to believe in.
You can have theists without there being any atheists, but you can’t have any atheists without theists.
Do you see my point?
LikeLike
Perhaps you have not understood what I actually meant to say here.
Zero can be written in many different ways. Zero can be written as 1-1; zero can be written as 2-2; zero can be written as 3-3; zero can be written as 4-4; again zero can be written as infinity-infinity. That means infinite number of different things can appear out of nothing provided that the totality of those infinite number of things always remains zero.
Scientists are now claiming that the universe has actually come out of nothing. In my analysis also I have been able to show that God is a bunch of several zeroes and that is why God needs no creation. So whether this universe has originated from nothing or from zero God, in both the cases everything will appear along with its own opposite, thus always keeping the totality of everything at its zero value. My statement in the article that ‘there cannot be any theist without any atheist’ should be read from that point of view only.
LikeLike
“Suppose no one on this earth has ever believed in any god or in any supernatural being. In that case, will there ever be any atheist on the earth? No.
That means only theistic beliefs can beget atheistic non-belief. Without theism atheism cannot flourish.”
I disagree. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. If there are no theists, then there is no one with a belief in god. What you end up with is a population that is 100% atheist. They may not have used the label on themselves but they are still atheist by their very lack of belief.
LikeLike
+sekharpal And yet as I have already shown, what you wrote is nothing but confirmation bias and utter claptrap, because it does not have everything appearing along with its own opposite.
LikeLike
If you can create any real world in which there will be only positive things but no negative things, then only I will accept your proposition as true.
You are having this present world in front of you. You can try to reform it in such a way that there will only be love in every person’s mind, but no hate anywhere. Then only I will believe you. Otherwise I am not going to believe it.
What you are saying are just bombastic words.
LikeLike
Interesting thought, but I agree with videopirate that not all of these things are dependent upon each other. I believe evil is but a corruption, a derivative of good and is therefore dependent upon good to exist. However, it does not need to exist. If we deem existence good then evil needs this attribute from good to exist survive, such a thing as pure evil could not exist as pure good can, for it would be self-destructive.
Kind of like how we describe darkness as the absence of light but not light as the absence of darkness. If there was light and it would never go out, such a thing as darkness would not exist. From a theistic (Christian) point of view for example, if God is good and also eternal, outside of time and therefore not subject to change, there would be no possibility of evil until this world was created, which is subject to time and therefore subject to change.
Interesting post nonetheless. These subjects remain intriguing to think about 🙂
I would agree for example that love and hate are connected, as someone who loves would hate that which tries to destroy that which it loves. So although they are opposites they are somehow entwined.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t this belief be counter to both god and heaven? If you assert negatives are always required then either a perfect being or perfect place would be impossible.
LikeLike
First of all, be aware that all of those concepts are human constructs, used to represent some aspect of existence to some degree of accuracy. Going back to the yes/no dichotomy, they developed out of necessity for communication, and do not necessarily represent any aspect of existence with a high degree of accuracy. When it comes to the actual state of existence, things are not grouped into dichotomies. We group them as such based on our intuitions and desires to communicate. After far ends of a spectrum are defined within a language, more subtle variations between them can emerge.
So the point you are trying to make in this article is a meaningless tautology. Yes, we create words to express points at far ends of concepts’ spectrums. But in the real world, there is no such thing as an “opposite”, there is no +1 and -1, those are purely conceptual. The state of a living organism is not the opposite of an organism that has died for example.
There is no such order and balance within existence, no ultimate justice system. Doing evil is not the opposite of doing good. If you have wronged someone, you can’t just do good elsewhere to reverse it. That’s only in your mind. The very least you can do is go back to that person and see what you can do for them. But you’ll never be able to go back in time and actually reverse that wrong doing.
I suggest studying the Philosophy of Language, people like Ludwig Wittgenstein and George Lakoff, if you are interested deepening your understanding of the concepts you are using.
LikeLike
Isn’t it the case that “There cannot be any X without any Y” is not a logical necessity? If, indeed, it’s not, then that means that that rule has been created by the creator, and can therefore be challenged.
LikeLike
I would agree. As far as characters like Yahweh of the Abrahamic faiths, one need not go beyond the relational and secondary attributes that he’s described with to realize that he can’t exist as described. Like how “omniscience” is a state of a mind that is self-contradictory. Because it implies the ability to claim knowing all. But if another greater being created Yahweh and kept him entirely in the dark about it, Yahweh would still only know things within what he is aware of. Disallowing him from being able to justifiably claim, under any circumstance, to know everything. Basically, “omniscience” is exactly what we would expect from a human writer, but not what we would expect from an actual super-being that is honest about the inherent limits of its awareness.
LikeLike