Problem of Evil

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 creation. Creation will bring everything along with its own opposite.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “ Problem of Evil”

  1. 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.

    Like

  2. 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.

    Like

    1. 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.

      Like

      1. +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?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s