# Do God and evil co-exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496 "2004-03-15T20:13:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/21 "2004-03-19T11:58:56Z")
I believe that I addressed the reason why goodness is the actual thing (like light) and evil is the merely essential thing (like darkness). It is because goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. Goodness, as I defined it, _edifies_. Were evil the actual thing, then its opposite — the absence of evil — would be merely something that does not destroy. Since destruction without edification would result in the consumption of all that exists, it cannot be the case that evil is the actual thing. I apologize for insulting materialists (or physicalists). That wasn’t my intention. In fact, I intended to show that we have common ground by acknowledging the existence of goodness. As Mswas suggested (and I had as well) the aesthetic of goodness is subjective without some objective reference frame that declares what is objectively good. What I did was posit that God has decided what is objectively good, and it is that which morally edifies — in other words, that which free moral agents share with other free moral agents such that all benefit and grow. It makes sense to me that God, Who exists necessarily (remember that Ludovic gave us that), is the objective frame since He exists in every possible world. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/22 "2004-03-19T12:37:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I apologize for insulting materialists (or physicalists). You must do no such thing, **Lib**. You proposed some gentle fencing practise, and I waded in with an enormous broadsword. In online interaction, one cannot see the mischievious glint of rough-and-tumble debate in a friend’s eye, just as that friend might not pick up facial cues to turn down the tone of his discourse. I also know that a drop of insensitive grandstanding from a friend is more painful than a torrent of the most deliberately vicious bile from a random yahoo. And so, soul mate, it is I who ask _you_ for forgiveness. > [@](#): > > I intended to show that we have common ground by acknowledging the existence of goodness. Quite so, indeed as we agreed just yesterday “Love is all that matters”. That we have different _explanations_ of what love is pales into insignificance compared to the fact of its _existence_. But this thread is perhaps _all about_ that different explanation. All of the entities you appeal to (goodness, edification, morals, aesthetics, “freedom”) are extremely difficult to translate into physical entities, and so I fear that for me to engage with you here in earnest, from my deeply held physicalist position, would pull the thread so far away it might unravel; we would be starting “from first priciples” if you like. So I’ll do my best to debate on your terms. Your thesis is indeed compelling, but I’d like to explore the antithesis; that _evil_ exists and that good is its absence. I rather like your summary > [@](#): > > If evil is the actual thing, then its opposite — the absence of evil — would be merely something that does not destroy. Since destruction without edification would result in the consumption of all that exists, it cannot be the case that evil is the actual thing. Perhaps a useful metaphor here is _entropy_? That everything tends towards disorder and destruction, and that the “good” is merely that which retards or arrests such? Almost Nietzschean in its depressing tone! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/23 "2004-03-19T12:56:50Z")
Actually, I think entropy is an excellent metaphor for evil. And it raises the question of whether the universe might not be the other way around were it not amoral. Approaching the issue aesthetically rather than metaphysically is certainly a much different discussion than the bland topic of ontological necessity. (And thanks for the apology. I love you.) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/24 "2004-03-19T13:19:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Perhaps a useful metaphor here is entropy? That everything tends towards disorder and destruction, and that the “good” is merely that which retards or arrests such? Almost Nietzschean in its depressing tone! This sounds a lot like Isaac Asimov’s proposed definition for “life”: Any localized reversal of entropy. Kinda deepens the metaphor, I think. [sub]Carry on.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/25 "2004-03-19T14:33:29Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > I believe that I addressed the reason why goodness is the actual thing (like light) and evil is the merely essential thing (like darkness). I’m not too up on this actual/essential thing, but if it isn’t stretching the Good:Light::Evil:Darkness metaphor and if my understanding of light is correct, then Evil is the ground state and if God did not create it then it pre-existed and transcends God and we have gone into something like _reductio ad absurdum_ in the proof of God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/26 "2004-03-19T14:52:07Z")
God’s existence has been given. (See the OP.) Goodness exists because, in order to be God’s most valued aesthetic (which is the premise), it must exist. (See the OP again.) Because goodness exists axiomatically, it is the actual thing. And evil is merely its absence; therefore, evil is merely essential. ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/27 "2004-03-19T15:08:58Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > God’s existence has been given. (See the OP.) Goodness exists because, in order to be God’s most valued aesthetic (which is the premise), it must exist. (See the OP again.) Because goodness exists axiomatically, it is the actual thing. And evil is merely its absence; therefore, evil is merely essential. Maybe you could point me to some definition of this actual/essential dichotomy. Are you saying that it is not the case that Evil is the ground state, i.e., that which would be there even if there were no Good? And the whole point of _reductio ad absurdum_ is to show that if the premises lead to an absurdity then the premises are false. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/28 "2004-03-19T15:21:03Z")
There’s quite a body of literature on both existentialism and essentialism, but to condense it a bit, essentialists basically say that essence preceeds existence while existentialists hold that existence preceeds essence. Aquinas best described the dichotomy (in my opinion, though Hegel is more popular) and Sartre made the best case for existentialism (in my opinion). For purposes of this discussion, since it has already been given that God exists, there is nothing on the table about His ontological significance. Rather, it is a discussion about His essence. The premise is that He values goodness above all else, and goodness is defined as an aesthetic. Since an ontological commitment is made by stating that goodness has value, it must be presumed that goodness exists. And since goodness exists, it is not necessary that evil exists as an actual thing. Just as it is not necessary that darkness exist as an actual thing since light exists. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/29 "2004-03-19T15:36:45Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > The premise is that He values goodness above all else, and goodness is defined as an aesthetic. Since an ontological commitment is made by stating that goodness has value, it must be presumed that goodness exists. And since goodness exists, it is not necessary that evil exists as an actual thing. Just as it is not necessary that darkness exist as an actual thing since light exists. Are these all “givens” or are there any debate points? ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/30 "2004-03-19T15:48:05Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > There’s quite a body of literature on both existentialism and essentialism, but to condense it a bit, essentialists basically say that essence preceeds existence while existentialists hold that existence preceeds essence. Aquinas best described the dichotomy (in my opinion, though Hegel is more popular) and Sartre made the best case for existentialism (in my opinion). For purposes of this discussion, since it has already been given that God exists, there is nothing on the table about His ontological significance. Rather, it is a discussion about His essence. The premise is that He values goodness above all else, and goodness is defined as an aesthetic. Since an ontological commitment is made by stating that goodness has value, it must be presumed that goodness exists. And since goodness exists, it is not necessary that evil exists as an actual thing. Just as it is not necessary that darkness exist as an actual thing since light exists. This leaves me more confused than I was to start with. I gather that the meaning of _essential_ differs considerably from the street value, but I can say no more. In addition, I am now uncertain as to the definition of _preceed_. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/31 "2004-03-19T15:52:41Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > In the most recent thread about the ontolotical argument (more precisely, it is about the modal ontological proof), Ludovic brought something up: > …snip… > That’s how I see it. And that’s why I do not believe that God and evil co-exist. Only one of them exists. The other is merely the essence of moral emptiness. I do not think that a god of any kind exists, period. Every definition of a god that we have had from the dawn of time has been something made up by one person or group of people for the sole purpose of accumulating wealth and gaining power over others. Evil is simply the voluntary doing of harm to another. In that aspect, it can be said to exist, but it’s a definition only. Piers Anthony notwithstanding, there really is no such thing as an Incarnation of Evil or an Incarnation of Good. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/32 "2004-03-19T16:35:20Z")
> [@zwaldd](#): > > Are these all “givens” or are there any debate points? The debate point is whether the God given by Ludovic co-exists with evil. Please see the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/33 "2004-03-19T16:42:45Z")
> [@Faldage](#): > > This leaves me more confused than I was to start with. I gather that the meaning of _essential_ differs considerably from the street value, but I can say no more. In addition, I am now uncertain as to the definition of _preceed_. Well, the question is whether a thing has a nature before it exists or existence before it has a nature. Here are exerpts from Hegel’s famous Doctrine of Essence: [http://www.kern-ep.de/Internet/Hegels\_Logik/essence.htm](http://www.kern-ep.de/Internet/Hegels_Logik/essence.htm) And here is Stanford University’s excellent introduction to existence: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/34 "2004-03-19T16:48:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I do not think that a god of any kind exists, period. Every definition of a god that we have had from the dawn of time has been something made up by one person or group of people for the sole purpose of accumulating wealth and gaining power over others. > > Evil is simply the voluntary doing of harm to another. In that aspect, it can be said to exist, but it’s a definition only. Piers Anthony notwithstanding, there really is no such thing as an Incarnation of Evil or an Incarnation of Good. God’s existence is given. Please see the portion of the OP that you snipped. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/35 "2004-03-19T17:14:20Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > The debate point is whether the God given by Ludovic co-exists with evil. Please see the OP. Weisenheimer! 😃 I meant out of the points that I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/36 "2004-03-19T17:23:19Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Well, the question is whether a thing has a nature before it exists or existence before it has a nature. Here are exerpts from Hegel’s famous Doctrine of Essence: > > [http://www.kern-ep.de/Internet/Hegels\_Logik/essence.htm](http://www.kern-ep.de/Internet/Hegels_Logik/essence.htm) > > And here is Stanford University’s excellent introduction to existence: > > [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/) Thanks, **Libertarian**. I’ll read them tonight and see if they make any sense to me. I’ll admit from your short description it looks to me like two blind men and an elephant. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/37 "2004-03-19T17:39:04Z")
> [@zwaldd](#): > > Weisenheimer! 😃 > I meant out of the points that I quoted. Oops, sorry! My bad, as the young folks say. You may debate the premise in what you quoted, but the rest follows logically from it. So if it is true, then the rest has to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/38 "2004-03-19T17:44:21Z")
> [@Faldage](#): > > Thanks, **Libertarian**. I’ll read them tonight and see if they make any sense to me. I’ll admit from your short description it looks to me like two blind men and an elephant. Fair enough. I can see how it might seem that way. 🙂 But your example is a good one to talk about. Let’s say that only one of your two blind men is touching the elephant. He is an existentialist. The other blind man is describing to the first one how to tell whether it is an elephant or something else. He is an essentialist. ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/39 "2004-03-19T18:13:40Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Fair enough. I can see how it might seem that way. 🙂 > > But your example is a good one to talk about. Let’s say that only one of your two blind men is touching the elephant. He is an existentialist. The other blind man is describing to the first one how to tell whether it is an elephant or something else. He is an essentialist. “No, it definitely doesn’t feel like a rope. If anything, it feels more like a great, warm, pulsating wall.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Faldage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Faldage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Faldage)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496/40 "2004-03-19T18:20:16Z")
> [@Faldage](#): > > “…a great, warm, pulsating wall.” > > 😉 But thanks for the analogy, it might help me understand this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-god-and-evil-co-exist/234496.md?page=3)