Can Good Exsist Without Evil?

[Will]

Mind you, before making any of the following statements, I make clear that it is not a matter of judgement, assuming fault on any individual, or an attempt at an ad hominem attack; I only use what is in evidence, to wit:

No worries. I can take it.

My answer would be, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you have an alterior agenda.  Social contract has been a lengthy, and mostly valuable, development in hominid sociality.  Also, other primates and other species of the higher order exhibit this, as a survival trait.

I'm with you so far.

There are two reasons this occurs:  You are an alpha specimen attempting to gain with less energy expenditure, what is available by proxy of social contract; or you are an omega specimen, and maintaining the defined parameters of the social contract, guarantees you continuance.

You're speaking above my education level, I think. Could you elaborate on "alpha specimen" and "omega specimen"?

Most never take the time to view what we do socially as hominids, but it is an economic (resource) transaction.  

I do good for others so that they will do good back to me, as a behavioral economy...sounds a bit like a technical explaination of the golden rule.

This shows that it is deeply engrained into the biochemical framework, to assist in the capacity to ensure continuance, (procreation).  It actually goes to the extent, genetically, that moving away from the social process, can cause physical repercussions.

Interesting. I have no problem accepting the possibility that altruistm comes from an inate biochemical response as opposed to a conscious decision. The result is the same.

To balance the scales of the discourse, there is another side represented by myself and some of the other posters: strict competitiveness of the reptilian mind.  Noticed in all of our commentary; lack of trust, solitary notions of the self security by not taking part in the social contract, and likelihood of tendencies toward more aggressive reactions with sensations of insecurity, (assumed under bias).

Together we represent the theoretical balance of sociality:  altruism under social contract ensures some resource leveling; reptilian minded competitiveness allows for "herd culling".

Both are strategies for the procreative assurance, species continuance.

I find you conclusions reasonable.

[donkeyhoty]

so, not to be a dick or anything, but it's ulterior not alterior.  A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

[Mastriani]

You're speaking above my education level, I think. Could you elaborate on "alpha specimen" and "omega specimen"?

An alpha specimen in a genetic "pool" or group, is the one that exhibits what are the most advantageous traits, towards the procreative strategy.  Likely traits being intelligence, imagination, strength, virility, aggression, etc.

An omega specimen is one that continues by the benefit of the superior members of the "pool" or grouping.  These are the submissives, but they are essential in their own right, as long as they do not become burdensome to the other members.

These roles are hierarchical, and dynamic.  Age, experience, health, accidental death all play a part in the changing of these roles.  There are some "pools" or groups where this doesn't apply, position in the hierarchy is genetically determined or an individual attempting to raise themself up must leave the current group and attempt to insert into a new one.

I do good for others so that they will do good back to me, as a behavioral economy...sounds a bit like a technical explaination of the golden rule.

Certainly, but with one essential difference: the genetic version requires no moral/ethical impetus.  It exists simply for the benefaction of the social group and their procreative strategies.

Interesting. I have no problem accepting the possibility that altruistm comes from an inate biochemical response as opposed to a conscious decision. The result is the same.

Yes and no.  The result is the same as long as there isn't a skewing of perspective created by fallacies such as morality.

I find you conclusions reasonable.

Unfortunately, they aren't "my" conclusions, but thank you for your time and the vote of confidence.  Many empiricists before me elucidated the points, and gathered the theories.  My position is much less venerable.  I am the regurgitator of their knowledge.

[Will]

so, not to be a dick or anything, but it's ulterior not alterior.  A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Grammar nazi. Hahaha. You win. Ulterior motive = hidden motive. Alterior motive = backup motive.

[donkeyhoty]

Actually alterior isn't a word, a backup motive would be an alternative.  

How's that for grammatical fascism?

[liketolearn]

the reason that christians would know that there are no 'bad' things in heaven is because they have already lived on earth, where both good and bad exist. nowhere in the bible does it say that people would forget their lives on earth when they enter the afterlife.

[Whitney]

If a Christian is in heaven yet hasn't forgotten his earthly life then that means he would also know that people are in hell.  How could heaven possibly be all good if you are tormented by that knowledge?  Well, unless you simply don't care about family, friends, and people in general who went to hell.

[Scrybe]

Do good and evil exist in reality? Not really.

Well I suppose that depends on what you mean by "real", huh?  Is a psychological motivation for a physical action "real"?   I would argue that it is, since it has a perceptible and measurable effect.  So whether good and evil are social constructs or represent the mandate of an ultimate authority it seems silly to say they don't exist.  They are adjectives, correct?  We have an adjective for the color blue.  We, as a species, have agreed that when the light reflected from an object has certain properties that are translated into our brains a certain way… the thing is blue.  There are people who are colorblind and may disagree.  Just as there are people who don't find murder to be evil.  That does not overpower the general consensus or void the reality of the concept.  Blue exists because we do, and our interpretive faculties require consensus in order to communicate.  

As to the OP, I think the story of creation and the garden make it abundantly clear that God created us as agents of evil to make each other miserable.  Had He not wanted that result, He would have kept the "serpent" out, or made the "tree of knowledge" better protected, or not made it at all.  Clearly â€"if one is to take the creation account as true even in a metaphorical sense- God wanted us to know the difference between good and evil.  This leads me to conclude that this knowledge is necessary for heavenly creatures.  Which leads me to conclude that there is a purpose for our suffering.  

Heaven would certainly suck if we knew our loved ones would be burning forever.  And there would be no point of heaven without a memory of the suffering we had endured.  But if, as Revelation says, the gates of heaven are always open, then those who have been purged will be joining us all anyway.  So no need to fret.      

P.S. Will, I love your humor.  Let's be friends.

[Judas]

I have some born again friends, when they figured out that I don't believe in their god, they told me I should and one of the reasons they give me is that heaven is a great place that there will be no bad things, no suffering, no pain, and that all will be happy because everything that is bad don't exsist in heaven.

I asked them how can one know what is happiness/good when the idea of all things bad/evil does not exsist in heaven.

One of them just points me to some page in the bible.

What do you guys think?

Your question is highly valid. The fact is that unless we define something as "bad" we cannot truly denote a polar opposite. It seems to me that the fact we suffer allows us to appreciate life. Heaven as it is presented is a place where nothing that is bad to us ever exists;your friend can point you to w/e  verse in the bible but it doesnt change the fact that if we never had a concept of "suffering" we could never have a concept of "bliss".