Is Anything Evil? Does Evil Exist?

The first step in answering the problem of evil is this: We've got to get clear on what this thing "evil" actually is. It does seem to follow that if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil. This is a valid syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion would be true as well.The problem with that line of reasoning is that the second premise is not true. Evil is not a thing. The person who probably explained it best was St. Augustine, and then Thomas Aquinas picked up on his solution. Others since them have argued that evil has no ontological status in itself.Let me give you an illustration to make this more clear. We talk about things being cold or warm. But coldness is not a thing that exists in itself; it has no ontological status. Coldness is the absence of heat. When we remove heat energy from a system, we say it gets colder."Cold" isn't a thing. It's a way of describing the reduction of molecular activity resulting in the sensation of heat. So the more heat we pull out of a system, the colder it gets. Cold itself isn't being "created." Cold is a description of a circumstance in which heat is missing. Heat is energy which can be measured. When you remove heat, the temperature goes down. We call that condition "cold," but there is no cold "stuff" that causes that condition.Same thing with a shadow. Shadows don't exist as things in themselves; they're just the absence of light.Evil is like that. Evil isn't like some black, gooey stuff floating around the universe that gloms onto people and causes them to do awful things. Evil is the absence of good, a privation of good, not a thing in itself.So donut holes don't exist; they're just the absence of donut. Shadows don't exist; they're just the absence of light. And evil doesn't exist; it's just the absence of good.

The evidence for each is anecdotal. Neither can be demonstrated empirically

The second has the virtue of getting the spelling of 'empirically' right. Other than that, the statements are of equal value.

The intent of the mass is not a factor in determining if gravity has happened or not.The intent of action is necessary to determine evil. There can be no objectively evil action, only subjectively evil actions.There is no subjective gravity.Likewise, there is no subjective matter.

Rob:So in your opinion, and depending upon one's worldview, it could be reasonable for some people to ravage an 18 month old baby girl after consuming a mind altering beverage all the while planning and deciding to do so while sober?Nuggin:

“It is difficult to resist the conclusion that twentieth-century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”

Now if you assert that we do not need a saviour if evil is not real it is encumbent on you to provide evidence of your assertion that evil is real.

You conceded in another thread that reality is absolute. Don't forget that.

How can you know it was "premeditated" if you can't fathom the motivation? And how does "premeditated" reconcile with lack of reason?

Following up on purpledawn's earlier point, isn't it also true that you can't observe good either?

So there are things that can be described as good or evil, but good and evil are not things that exist.

I asked you how a person can premeditate without using reason. I'm suggesting that an act is either premeditiated or unreasonable - but not both.

And you still still haven't answered the other question: How can you determine somebody else's motivations if you don't understand the reasoning behind them? And especially if you claim there is no reasoning behind them?

How can a person "decide" to reject reason without using reason? Isn't decision-making a reasoning process?

So there are things that can be described as good or evil, but good and evil are not things that exist.

What is "it"?

You claimed that "evil" results from a "decision" to reject reason. You haven't shown that that kind of decision comes from a "natural impulse".