According to Wikipedia,

Meta-ethics is the study of the fundamental questions concerning the nature and origins of the good and the vile, including inquiry into the nature of good and evil, as well as the meaning of evaluative language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

I have boldened the last part of the quote above to stress the fact that the evaluative language used to express good and evil is as well under scrutiny.

Generally, good may be defined as "Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified" while evil may be defined as "Objectionable, exerting an undesired, malignant influence intended to cause harm, misfortune or destruction".

From my Biblical perspective, the question would be: did God create evil? And my answer is YES, God created evil but He is not the source of evil. This means that he does not cause evil things to happen.

Since nothing can pre-exist God, He must have created Satan, who Jesus said was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

The word "beginning" here in the Greek ar-khay means "commencement" and is the same used in John 1:1 referring to the origins of Jesus, so whatever conclusions we draw about the meaning of that word, must apply to both Jesus and Satan in their respective good and evil states. This is not to say that Jesus is a creation, because of course he is God (I speak from a Christian viewpoint). It simply means that "Before the world existed, Jesus the Word was / is God."

And thus I further say that whatever conclusions we can reach about the "primordial state" of the Word (Jesus) with respect to good, is the same conclusion about the "primordial state" of Satan with respect to evil. I speak of a primordial state, and not an initialization state. Primordial would refer to the "time of the beginning", while the initialization would predate the "beginning". I believe this primordial state is heavily hinged upon a deliberate decision by the active party: in either case the Word and Satan, from the very beginning.

The Word chose to be the divining principle of God's intents, since the Word WAS with God in the beginning, and WAS (towards) God (had charge of, held and used) [John 1:1]

On the other hand, for Satan to have fallen, this necessitates a time at which he was without imperfection. If that is taken to its logical conclusion, then this means that Satan at one time was perfect, but chose of his own volition to go against God's perfect will.

Please share your viewpoints on this matter. Thanks. 

so whatever conclusions we draw about the meaning of that word, must apply to both Jesus and Satan in their respective good and evil states

not necessarily.


The beginning you're referring to sounds more like the beginning of this world ie genesis

InesQor:

From my Biblical perspective, the question would be: did God create evil? And my answer is YES, God created evil but He is not the source of evil. This means that he does not cause evil things to happen.

Don't try to confuse,bro.If the biblical god is the creator of evil, then he is also the source of evil.

The question now is, "where is the universal/cosmic law that says that a creator has to be only good 100% of the time?".Is it good to be good 100% of the time or is it bad?
Does it serve the right purpose to create a world that is all good and no negative?Ofcourse, this leads us to the question of what the purpose of the creation of the physical universe really serves.It all hinges on the purpose of creation which still remain, to a very large extent, shrouded in complete mystery.

InesQor:

Since nothing can pre-exist God, He must have created Satan, who Jesus said was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

What is Satan?

Is it not true that the principles of good and evil are self existent and eternal principles in the way as the principles of light and darkness are?

It simply means that "Before the world existed, Jesus the Word was / is God."

Where did you get this notion from?

Since you show an inclination towards studying Greek and Hebrew words i am going to put you a rigorous test of scriptural linguistics.

Have you cared to study the Greek in John I:1? ? ?

Is the word used for "God" in the sentence ". . .and the word was with God" -
the same as the word used for God in the sentence - ". . .and the word was God"

Ansswer me this.

[quote][/quote]

tpia.:


not necessarily.


The beginning you're referring to sounds more like the beginning of this world ie genesis

Well said, tpia. The primordial instantiation (NOT the initialization experience) is what I referred to when I said Jesus and Satan had those respective states in the beginning. In this case, THAT primordial instantiation would be the beginning of this world, since we as observers are IN this world.

jagunlabi:

Don't try to confuse,bro.If the biblical god is the creator of evil, then he is also the source of evil.

I believe the "Biblical God" created evil. i.e. he established the possibility of its existence, but he is not the source of evil i.e. the pinnacle from which it issues. By establishing an initial harmonious order and declaring it as "good", God had perforce established that anything which does not conform with that pattern is "evil", he thus "created" evil. But he will not continually go against his own established order to jeopardize it in the name of that "evil". So He is the creator, but not the source. This means that in his grand scheme, he ALLOWS it to exist (at least for now), but he does not support it.

jagunlabi:

The question now is, "where is the universal/cosmic law that says that a creator has to be only good 100% of the time?".Is it good to be good 100% of the time or is it bad?
Does it serve the right purpose to create a world that is all good and no negative?Of course, this leads us to the question of what the purpose of the creation of the physical universe really serves.It all hinges on the purpose of creation which still remain, to a very large extent, shrouded in complete mystery.

I think the real question is "What is good? What does it mean, and what does it entail?". As mortals we tend to think of good as "whatever favours me", but I guess its not like that on a cosmic scale. Here is the wikipedia entry on "good".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good
Good as an adjective

* expressing usefulness (of objects, "good for"
* expressing expertise (of persons, "good at"
* expressing morality or altruism (of persons)

I believe none other than an initial creator can establish the usefulness, expertise and morality (accurate conduct) and altruism (selfless harmony) involved in the creation. The perfection of the creation may involve some elements that appear "evil" to us as men, but on the creator's scale, they are "good".

As you noted, this all hangs upon the PURPOSE of the creation, which is shrouded in great mystery. But only God, the creator, would understand this mysteriously shrouded purpose, and whatever he deems in harmonious consonance with that purpose is good, whatever is not is evil.

Satan as lucifer was created good , all things that God made was good, until Satan corrupted his anointing and reveled against God, he use the power of God for evil .

Ezekiel 28:14-19
Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

jagunlabi:

The question now is, "where is the universal/cosmic law that says that a creator has to be only good 100% of the time?".Is it good to be good 100% of the time or is it bad?
Does it serve the right purpose to create a world that is all good and no negative?Ofcourse, this leads us to the question of what the purpose of the creation of the physical universe really serves.It all hinges on the purpose of creation which still remain, to a very large extent, shrouded in complete mystery.

I don't know if I got you right but what I feel you're trying to say is that it would have been a dull world if everything is just good without the balance of evil . I my asumptioN is right, then I have this to say. God doesn't need balance of evil to make life beautiful. The purpose of creation was to serve him and give him pleasure.
.
Rev 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The challenge between good and evil is a distruption in Gods plan. After this age is over . There will be an age where evil will be no more . This will be the real beauty of existence.

Rev 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Deep Sight:

What is Satan?

Is it not true that the principles of good and evil are self existent and eternal principles in the way as the principles of light and darkness are?

Satan means "the adversary". In the Torah Satan refers to both military (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kings 5:4) and legal (Ps 109:6) adversaries.

The "assumption" involved is that a perfect creation will exist and function in harmony with its original purposes, but by laws of invariableness and change (such as Newton's first law), if that creation deviates from the harmonious purpose then it must have been the work of an "adversary" offering opposition to that harmonious purpose.

You have said that the principles of good and evil are self-existent and eternal like principles of light and darkness, and this indicates the position here as well. Whatever does not contribute to illumination is an element of darkness, and whatever does not increase darkness is an element of illumination. Darkness would be the adversary of light in the that case.

Satan, then, would be the personification of that force that moves against the harmonious purpose of the prime mover.

Deep Sight:

It simply means that "Before the world existed, Jesus the Word was / is God."

Where did you get this notion from?

I said I was speaking from a Christian viewpoint,

This is not to say that Jesus is a creation, because of course he is God (I speak from a Christian viewpoint). It simply means that "Before the world existed, Jesus the Word was / is God."

Many often tend to think of Jesus Christ only as a man, and physically speaking such rationale cannot be faulted. However, I have come to understand that Jesus the man is the physical icon of a spiritual Logos, a "reason and principle of origins, order and knowledge" or Word of God.

In that case, before the world existed, this initial "reason" in consonance with God, would be personified as God himself. This is because unlike man who can say one thing, and mean or do another, God is in absolute perfection with his own eternal reason and principle, by which he implements all that He does.

Deep Sight:

Since you show an inclination towards studying Greek and Hebrew words i am going to put you a rigorous test of scriptural linguistics.

Have you cared to study the Greek in John I:1? ? ?

Is the word used for "God" in the sentence ". . .and the word was with God" -
the same as the word used for God in the sentence - ". . .and the word was God"

Ansswer me this.

Recall my opening remark, about evaluative language (from wikipedia).

Meta-ethics is the study of the fundamental questions concerning the nature and origins of the good and the vile, including inquiry into the nature of good and evil, as well as the meaning of evaluative language.

So we will be careful not to lose meaning in the multitude of words.

The Greek phrase you refer to is "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" popularly translated as "the Word was God". Here, the subject (Logos) and the complement (God) are in a nominative case, so grammatical clarity would be achieved by stating this as "the Word was God" or "the Word was a god". Note that the insertion of an article before the complement has changed it to lower-case, since there is (as to be assumed) only one upper-case God.

And therein lies a problem: early New testament manuscripts made no distinction between upper-case and lower-case letters. This has given rise to many such non-trinitarian translations as the Jehovah's Witnesses' Emphatic Diaglott and NWT (New World Translation) which translate this as "the Word was a god" and also Moffatt's new translation ambiguously states "the Word was divine".

My own take is that in the consideration of the initial nominative case, without reference to article and/or sentence case, this should have been translated "that which God was, the Word also was".

Personally, I think this discussion borders on Theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy).

Theodicy (pronounced /θiːˈɒdɪsi/) is an answer to the problem of evil. Specifically, Theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy which attempts to reconcile belief in God with the perceived existence of evil. As such, theodicy can be said to attempt to justify the behaviour of God (at least insofar as God allows evil).

Theodicy deals with such philosophical questions as "If God is completely good, then he would only want good things to happen, and if God is all powerful, then he would not allow evil things to happen. So, the perplexing argument is: Why does God let bad things happen (to good people)?"

There is something interesting I discovered about Theodicy recently. There is also the popular belief that Satan was once an angel named Lucifer, and is now fallen (Isaiah 14:12). By the way, Lucifer in Hebrew hay-lale' simply means "the morning star," and the analogy here is also argued to pertain to Adam, wanting to become like God. It is interesting to note that "morning star" is also used in Revelation 22:16 to refer to Jesus, quoting him saying: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." So, that's a bit sketchy of a description to be attributing to both Jesus and Satan. I think it's more likely that "morning star" there refers to Adam in a sinless state, eventually falling from grace, and then references Jesus as the Second Adam who still remains luminous.

Since we will not compromise on God's purity or sovereignty, we can only observe that evil cannot spawn itself and do whatever it wants, overriding God's authority. This would be a tear in the fabric of existence, from which evil sneaks in and taints everything. I don't think this can be. God created/allowed evil to exist, but it is not in his will for it to triumph.

I think I agree with InesQor above

"By establishing an initial harmonious order and declaring it as "good", God had perforce established that anything which does not conform with that pattern is "evil", he thus "created" evil. "

For Satan to have fallen, this necessitates a time at which he was without imperfection. If that is taken to its logical conclusion, then this means that Satan at one time was perfect, but chose of his own volition to go against God's perfect will.

Mavenb0x:

Personally, I think this discussion borders on Theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy).

Theodicy deals with such philosophical questions as "If God is completely good, then he would only want good things to happen, and if God is all powerful, then he would not allow evil things to happen. So, the perplexing argument is: Why does God let bad things happen (to good people)?"

My viewpoint on Theodicy is in my earlier quote.

I believe none other than an initial creator can establish the usefulness, expertise and morality (accurate conduct) and altruism (selfless harmony) involved in the creation. The perfection of the creation may involve some elements that appear "evil" to us as men, but on the creator's scale, they are "good".

The very definition of "bad things" happening to "good people" is predicated upon the assumption that we know the relevance and purposes of events in harmony with the creator. I think God does not "do good things" or "do evil things" as he "wishes". Whatever he does is termed as good, and whatever is in adverse reaction to that would be "evil".

He cannot "do evil" because He will not go against his own established "good" order to jeopardize it in the name of that "evil".

Joagbaje:

I don't know if I got you right but what I feel you're trying to say is that it would have been a dull world if everything is just good without the balance of evil . I my asumptioN is right, then I have this to say. God doesn't need balance of evil to make life beautiful. The purpose of creation was to serve him and give him pleasure.
, <snip>,

Interesting point there. But isn't it this "balance of evil" that makes the good obvious, and vice-versa? I think one cannot define good without an invisible reference to evil. One cannot speak of illumination if the concept of darkness does not exist.

Joagbaje:

The challenge between good and evil is a distruption in Gods plan. After this age is over . There will be an age where evil  will be no more . This will be the real beauty of existence.
, <snip>,

I do not agree that the challenge between good and evil is a disruption in God's plans. I think by instituting good, he established the possibility of an adverse nature (evil); he thus defined good (as that which is harmonious) and evil (as that which is discordant) with his initial purposes, and there was no middle ground. The part I may agree with is that it is not God's intention for evil to overshadow the good harmonious order that he instituted.

For instance, the fact that I have a clean, spotless white shirt shows that I understand that it CAN get stained. This does not mean that when a speck of dust settles on it, it is a disruption in my original plan of owning a clean, spotless white shirt because it is NOT a stainless white shirt. My plan would be to ensure that the stains are kept under control and do not overrun the whiteness of the shirt.

InesQor:

For instance, the fact that I have a clean, spotless white shirt shows that I understand that it CAN get stained. This does not mean that when a speck of dust settles on it, it is a disruption in my original plan of owning a clean, spotless white shirt because it is NOT a stainless white shirt. My plan would be to ensure that the stains are kept under control and do not overrun the whiteness of the shirt.

I don't see how this applies to a disruption of good plans by evil intents. Why not a stainless white shirt, if the plan is to ensure that the stains are kept under control?

This thread and contributions so far intrigue me. The subject of meta-ethics itself may border around an akin one: aetiology. It's deep, but contributions in this thread are interesting.

Mavenb0x:

I don't see how this applies to a disruption of good plans by evil intents. Why not a stainless white shirt, if the plan is to ensure that the stains are kept under control?

The stainless white shirt in that case, will be a deprivation (if I may say so) of God's intellectual creativity. If God made a stainless and perfect world in which the possibility of evil was inexistent, then that world itself will be an "extension of God", or as it were, God; like a container that can never get full. I believe such a creation will invalidate the creation experience, which was not meant to be a futile effort.

viaro:

This thread and contributions so far intrigue me. The subject of meta-ethics itself may border around an akin one: aetiology. It's deep, but contributions in this thread are interesting.

Welcome, viaro. I think Aetiology studies the origins of natures, Eschatology studies the termination of natures, but meta-ethics borrows from the two by considering normative attitudes that evolve in between the origins and terminations of natures. I think they are all intersected.

InesQor:

Welcome, viaro. I think Aetiology studies the origins of natures, Eschatology studies the termination of natures, but meta-ethics borrows from the two by considering normative attitudes that evolve in between the origins and terminations of natures. I think they are all intersected.

I don't know, but your thoughts are appreciated. Eschatology studies 'final things', not the termination of natures. Beyond death and final judgement(s), there is an existence that opens before us into another epoch; so eschatology is not about terminations at all, and certainly not about the termination of any 'natures'.

True, meta-ethics borrows from both aetiology and eschatology - but it also enriches itself by drawing from other ideas (teleology, axiology, deontology, etc). Yes, there's a massive web of intersections between them all, and that's why I remarked that it's quite a deep subject in itself.

BTW, your reasoning captures my deepest interests.

viaro:

I don't know, but your thoughts are appreciated. Eschatology studies 'final things', not the termination of natures. Beyond death and final judgement(s), there is an existence that opens before us into another epoch; so eschatology is not about terminations at all, and certainly not about the termination of any 'natures'.

True, meta-ethics borrows from both aetiology and eschatology - but it also enriches itself by drawing from other ideas (teleology, axiology, deontology, etc). Yes, there's a massive web of intersections between them all, and that's why I remarked that it's quite a deep subject in itself.

BTW, your reasoning captures my deepest interests.

You are very correct, viaro. And thanks for the compliment. 

^^ Much obliged, and please keep the thread up - can't wait to read more from you guys.

viaro:

^^ Much obliged, and please keep the thread up - can't wait to read more from you guys.

Yes, sir. I hope we can have a marvelous discussion as the thread proceeds. Please I also need your viewpoints on this other topic of mine as well. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-402058.0.html (An Atheist's Argument: Views On The Paradox Between Christian Beliefs / Actions)

Great topic.

Yield:

Great topic.

Thanks, Yield. Really pretty picture you have there on your profile!

InesQor:

Satan means "the adversary". In the Torah Satan refers to both military (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kings 5:4) and legal (Ps 109:6) adversaries.

The "assumption" involved is that a perfect creation will exist and function in harmony with its original purposes, but by laws of invariableness and change (such as Newton's first law), if that creation deviates from the harmonious purpose then it must have been the work of an "adversary" offering opposition to that harmonious purpose.

You have said that the principles of good and evil are self-existent and eternal like principles of light and darkness, and this indicates the position here as well. Whatever does not contribute to illumination is an element of darkness, and whatever does not increase darkness is an element of illumination. Darkness would be the adversary of light in the that case.

Satan, then, would be the personification of that force that moves against the harmonious purpose of the prime mover.

If Satan is the personification of Darkness and Darkness is agreed to be self-existent just as Light is, the inexorable conclusion is that “Satan” is self-existent.

Thus not created by God.

This is an important point in understanding the relationship between good and evil.

That darkness and light are self existent.

Accordingly the question of “God” - (the Light) creating evil (or darkness) does not arise.

Now if Darkness is self-existent then evil is a reality which will be permanent.

Many often tend to think of Jesus Christ only as a man, and physically speaking such rationale cannot be faulted. However, I have come to understand that Jesus the man is the physical icon of a spiritual Logos, a "reason and principle of origins, order and knowledge" or Word of God.

Would you care to share the inspiration for this wonderful realization of yours? A divine visitation perhaps?

Why can it not be said that you, me and every other human being is likewise “a physical icon of a spiritual Logos” ? ? ? ?

The Greek phrase you refer to is "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" popularly translated as "the Word was God". Here, the subject (Logos) and the complement (God) are in a nominative case, so grammatical clarity would be achieved by stating this as "the Word was God" or "the Word was a god". Note that the insertion of an article before the complement has changed it to lower-case, since there is (as to be assumed) only one upper-case God.

And therein lies a problem: early New testament manuscripts made no distinction between upper-case and lower-case letters. This has given rise to many such non-trinitarian translations as the Jehovah's Witnesses' Emphatic Diaglott and NWT (New World Translation) which translate this as "the Word was a god" and also Moffatt's new translation ambiguously states "the Word was divine".

My own take is that in the consideration of the initial nominative case, without reference to article and/or sentence case, this should have been translated "that which God was, the Word also was".

You thus accede that John 1:1 – when studied in the original language, provides no basis for the supposition that Jesus is the Creator, yes?

Deep Sight:

If Satan is the personification of Darkness and Darkness is agreed to be self-existent just as Light is, the inexorable conclusion is that “Satan” is self-existent.

Thus not created by God.

This is an important point in understanding the relationship between good and evil.

That darkness and light are self existent.

Accordingly the question of “God” - (the Light) creating evil (or darkness) does not arise.

Now if Darkness is self-existent then evil is a reality which will be permanent.

Satan was created by God, and he was not always evil.

Light and Darkness are not self-existent. Rather, the principles of light and darkness are self-existent. The principle of light establishes the principle of darkness as the absence of the influence of light.

Accordingly, God created light and thus set in motion the principles of light. Establishing the principles of light makes sure that the principles of darkness also exist (whatever opposes the principles of light), and whenever a sentient agent operates the principles of darkness, darkness will occur.

Diagrammatically, Light => Principles of Light => Principles of Darkness => Darkness

and/or Good => Original intents and harmony of God's intents in creation => Adverse intents to harmony in God's intents => Acts of Evil

Deep Sight:

Would you care to share the inspiration for this wonderful realization of yours? A divine visitation perhaps?

Why can it not be said that you, me and every other human being is likewise “a physical icon of a spiritual Logos” ? ? ? ?

You thus accede that John 1:1 – when studied in the original language, provides no basis for the supposition that Jesus is the Creator, yes?

It can not be said that you or any other human being is such a physical icon because you do not have any such spiritual-empirical evidence in that light. But if you do, then feel free to make the unsubstantiated claims.

No, I wouldn't say that it provides no basis that Jesus is the Creator. Rather, it provides a basis for the hypostasis of the Logos: he is the "Son" of God in that THAT WHICH (WHO IS) God is, Logos ALSO IS.

Now it is only left to you to decide if God is the creator or not, and in that case if Jesus is the Creator.

InesQor:

Satan was created by God, and he was not always evil.

In light of your earlier remarks, I find this very very strange indeed.

You said, and I quote –

You have said that the principles of good and evil are self-existent and eternal like principles of light and darkness, and this indicates the position here as well. Whatever does not contribute to illumination is an element of darkness, and whatever does not increase darkness is an element of illumination. Darkness would be the adversary of light in the that case.

Which to my mind is a firm acceptance of the self-existence of both Light and Darkness.

You went further to state –

Satan, then, would be the personification of that force that moves against the harmonious purpose of the prime mover.

Which gives that Satan is the very personification of Darkness: something that is self existent – and thus that Satan is Self Existent.

Light and Darkness are not self-existent. Rather, the principles of light and darkness are self-existent. The principle of light establishes the principle of darkness as the absence of the influence of light.

I am at odds with your blurry distinction between “the principle of light” and “the light.” Can you shed light on this: no pun intended.

Because I verily am given to believe that the distinction needn’t be made; the principle of light bearing every rationale of the self-existence of the Light. In other words, we can only refer to The Light in terms of the Principle of Light.

If this is the case I should be correct to state that God is HIMSELF the eternal primordial Living Light.

And if God has always existed; then going by your summation: darkness has always existed, because it is simply all things that are not the light. It thus emerges forcefully that if Satan is as you say – “the personification of darkness” – then Satan has always existed.

Again, this reasoning leads to the same inescapable point that Satan was not created by God; but that Satan (darkness) is the natural reverse of God (Light).
I see it as the principle of duality which is inescapable.

I am certain that you can see reason with this; and if you can; then it firmly contradicts your bible stories about God creating Lucifer, war in heaven, a fall from heaven, etcetera: which are at best unverifiable celestial myths.

For me the principle of Duality is enough to ground the self-existent Light and the self-existent darkness.

@Deep Sight

The only duality I believe in, if any, is the duality of principles, and not of active agents like light and darkness. i.e. principles set agents into motion, so principles can act in duality. Sentient agents do not act in duality, but they align with established principles by choice or pre-determination.

I believe the principles of light have to do with HOW light functions in light (no pun intended) of its existence. Light would thus be bound by the principles of light. Same for darkness, it is described by the absence of principles of light.

Before physical light was established, it cannot be said that darkness existed either, because they constitute a duality. When light was established, the form in which it illumines was established (this is the principle of light) and thus the possibility of illumination was established. WHEN the possibility of illumination was established, the possibility of darkness was also established as an anti-thesis of the possibility of illumination. And whatever PARTICIPATES in that principle of darkness is said to be in darkness.

Satan is the personification of DARKNESS, which is a result of the principle of darkness (called sin). Sin (evil-doing) was a possibility because the principles of light (good) was established by Him (God) who is LIGHT and is self-existent.

Theoretically, God (LIGHT) established things in HARMONY (principle of light); and the VERY FACT that harmony was instituted means that disharmony is a possibility (being even a slight deviation from the established harmony). It is only a matter of time or purpose before principles of disharmony (darkness) can set in. And when this possibility of disharmony was actively operated upon to weaken the harmony of the original intents, the active agent was personalized as Satan.

In other words, if there was no perfect system in the first place, there would be no Satan (who is defined as an adversary to the perfect system's order of harmony). But since there was a perfect system, it was only a matter of time before an agent moves against the perfection to cause imperfection. The imperfection of such a perfect system may never have happened for a billion years, it may have happened in one second, but it WOULD definitely happen because it was designed as a "good" system, i.e. relative to God's intents, and so any agent who could possibly operate OUTSIDE God i.e. able to operate independently, could begin the imperfection. It does not mean the agent existed along with the CAUSE of the perfection ab initio

On the other hand, as viaro corrected me,

Eschatology studies 'final things', not the termination of natures. Beyond death and final judgement(s), there is an existence that opens before us into another epoch; so eschatology is not about terminations at all, and certainly not about the termination of any 'natures'.

there is another epoch after this one, where good will not be relative to God's intents of harmony, but will be the only system of operation: all creation having conformed to the nature of the divine. In this epoch, such an imperfection of an otherwise perfect system will not be possible.

InesQor:

According to Wikipedia, . . .
. . .Generally, good may be defined as "Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified" while evil may be defined as "Objectionable, exerting an undesired, malignant influence intended to cause harm, misfortune or destruction".

I will leave the biblical discussion for christians.

IMO, evil arises from ones attitude towards that which one does not comprehend and to which one is 'vulnerable'. It is a sense of being confounded by ones own reluctance to learn.

Comprehension dispels ignorance and, thereby, evil. One ceases to be tied to specifics and is free from the need to create notions of positivity and negativity in relation to them. The will becomes free and one learns it is the owner of intent.

There are problems.

InesQor:


Satan is the personification of DARKNESS, which is a result of the principle of darkness (called sin). Sin (evil-doing) was a possibility because the principles of light (good) were established by Him (God) who is LIGHT and is self-existent.

Note that above you have stated -

the principles of light (good) were established by Him (God) who is LIGHT and is self-existent.

Note closely that you have stated that –

1. God is LIGHT
2. Light is self-existent.

Now consider this carefully. If something is self-existent then it has always existed.

So you have stated that Light is Self Existent. Thus it has always existed.

You yourself also stated that Darkness is the absence of Light.

Thus if Light has always existed: then the reverse (absence) has always existed; it could not be otherwise – for at any point that Light Exists, the reverse – darkness – exists also.

Thus it remains true that if Light is Self Existent, then so is darkness.

If Light is Eternal, then so is Darkness.

Neither creating the other – both simply being the natural reverse of the other given the principle of Duality.

Thus when you state that Satan is the darkness – then you accede that Satan is self-existent and has always existed.

I am surprised that you do not see that this helps solve the mystery of the existence of evil supposedly emanating from a “good” God.

@sinequanon:

sinequanon:

I will leave the biblical discussion for christians.

IMO, evil arises from ones attitude towards that which one does not comprehend and to which one is 'vulnerable'. It is a sense of being confounded by ones own reluctance to learn.

Comprehension dispels ignorance and, thereby, evil. One ceases to be tied to specifics and is free from the need to create notions of positivity and negativity in relation to them. The will becomes free and one learns it is the owner of intent.

Thank you. Speaking secularly, I don't think evil arises from ignorance and can be dispelled by comprehension. A reluctance to learn can truly foster the EFFECTS of evil on the sentient agent, because the increase of comprehension will create a ground upon which the agent can combat evil. Evil exists irrespective of a sentient agent's ignorance or comprehension, but its EFFECTS upon that sentient agent are dependent on the amount of information that the agent possesses.

Deep Sight:

Yes, Light is self-existent; but not so darkness. It is impossible for there to be complete darkness, speaking scientifically. It is only possible to have a highly reduced amount of light. Thus there could never have been a time of complete darkness (Satan's existentiality), AS WELL as a time of complete self-existent light (which would have dispelled the darkness). This is why I say that the concept of darkness was in existence, but darkness itself was not.

Consider a hot-air balloon full of air, floating peacefully in the sky, and it is punctured by a bullet such that it begins to leak. At the primordial time, the balloon was wholesome, and there was no "lack of air" about it. As the balloon loses air and altitude, the engineers on board begin to patch the leaking hole to reduce the rate of expulsion of air, and thus the rate of descent and avoid crashlanding. Before the puncture, the POSSIBILITY of losing altitude due to a puncture was in existence, but the drunk man who shot the balloon had not yet pulled the trigger, and the hot air had not began to leak. If the POSSIBILITY of losing air had not existed, then even if the balloon was shot nothing would have happened. This illustrates how I mean when I say the possibility of darkness was available, but darkness itself wasn't, and neither was Satan (in his current evil form).

Please note that darkness is not the absence of light. Darkness is that which to an extent denies the influence of light in a location. There is no such thing as "darkness" in its essential form (without reference to the light it has denied).

Light (visible light) is always present, and has always been present. It's just that our eyes don't take in enough light to see in "dark" places. So "complete darkness" would be the complete absence of light (impossible, since light is primeval). But darkness as we perceive it is better expressed as a "lack of light", to varying degrees.

Similarly, Evil is not the absence of good, rather it is that which to an extent denies the influence of good in a situation / location. Evil cannot be referenced in an essential form without reference to the good that it has denied. Good is ALWAYS present, and has always been present with the harmony of existence. I don't see how evil (an iota of disharmony) could have existed at the same time as good (harmony)! Evil is the lack of good, to varying degrees.

So, Evil has not always existed. Rather, God being good, and the established existence of agents that could move independent of him, necessitated the possibility that evil could exist. THIS POSSIBILITY OF EVIL was established when Good was established, but not Evil itself. Evil was established when an agent took advantage of the possibility. I repeat, I believe Evil is not primordial.