Having recently taken a philosophy class in college I find myself at a new spiritual awareness. I went into the class expecting the usual associations with philosophy of question everything, nothing is absolute, and studying incoherent thoughts of dead people from long ago. All of these associations came to be, but their purpose was considerably different from what I expected and what might have once been incoherent thoughts had considerable clarity when viewed through a spiritual lens. As a matter of fact, the class ended up centering around spirituality and God, which resulted in rather weighty discussions among those of us willing to engage the topic head on (it was an online course). I had internalized the teachings of such philosophers as Socrates and Immanuel Kant among many others and realized that my ultimate quest- the quest for God- has followed a path at least partially explored by many others, though in a manner largely lost in the doctrines of modern western religion.
***In western religion, the doctrine of a particular religion is emphasized considerably more than the philosophy. In other words, it is generally considered more important to obey the rules than to understand them. This is due in large part to religion having once ruled over society, which demanded subservient obedience in order to maintain power and authority.
So it was that my mind opened to new ways of thinking about God and the meaning of life which brought me along a dizzying series of thought evolutions many of which actually became conclusive beliefs despite the relative nature of philosophy. In essence, my spirituality became considerably stronger as a result of a deeper understanding of myself and my relationship with God (interestingly, I found out after the semester that my instructor is a Christian predeterminist- everything is fate. Nearly a polar opposite of me).
Our final project was to pick a philosophical position and defend it using various resource requirements. I foolishly chose to defend that there is a God. The real problem here is that my concept of God is so expansive that it became impossible to clearly argue in a 5 to 7 page essay. Fortunately, the instructor recognized the effort I put into the paper and the sincere impasse I had encountered and gave me a good grade. I have become rather passionate to understand for myself what I believe to be God, so this is where I reorganize my thoughts and attempt to finish what I started.
I’ve put considerable thought into where to begin. I always end up at the concepts of Good and Evil, so perhaps this is where I should begin. I expect this essay to be continuous, so I will post many times in the future on the various aspects of God, life, morality, and death. For now, I argue that there is no such thing as Good and Evil.
WHAT, you say? Is not love Good and hate Evil? Isn’t nurture Good and torture Evil?
I don’t deny the concepts of Good and Evil. I simply don’t believe they are accurate of the nature of God. Good and Evil are useful but elementary manifestations of the human mind- concepts applied to something that is formless and boundless in order to make it more easily manageable.
If Good and Evil are some aspect of God and we accept that God is infinite, then any one part of God is infinite and must be treated as such. When we say that there is Good and Evil, we are taking something infinite and attempting to fracture it into two parts that we like to think are independent of each other. The trouble is, what is Good if there is no Evil and vice versa? The fact of the matter is that we are using two terms to separately define the infinite extremes of the same condition. This is impossible.
To make this clearer, if God is everything, and we accept that there is Good and Evil then God is necessarily Good AND Evil. This does not work for who would worship even a slightly Evil God much less one who is infinitely Evil? On this premise alone the Atheists understandably feel they are justified in their denial of God. How unfortunate that two fundamental concepts of western religion are so contradictory that they provide the very premise for the logical nonexistence of God.
Additionally, Good and Evil cannot be independent of each other because each one is dependent on the existence of the other. In the absence of torture can there be only nurture? Bread and water is nurture for a prisoner who would otherwise get nothing, yet would we consider that good nurture? In the absence of torture doesn’t bad nurture become torture?
I could go on about the concepts of Good and Evil, but hopefully the point is clear. As I said earlier, they are references to an infinite condition. The only way that condition could be part of the whole of God is if it can be infinite unto itself. I argue that Good and Evil are simply human interpretations of Balance and Imbalance.
Consider a see-saw as viewed from the side. When it is imbalanced it tilts either right or left and either way is a condition of imbalance. However, when the see-saw is perfectly balanced it is balanced infinitely along a horizontal plane. The left and right no longer matter because balance describes the state of the entire subject being observed. It’s not as if we would say the see-saw is in a state of equal left and right. Balance is a condition unto itself.
If we can say that Balance is independent of Imbalance, then we can logically say that Imbalance is the absence of Balance. Since these arguments are true, then I believe that Balance is the fundamental nature of God. Therefore, God is not loving (a verb not to be confused with the noun Love), or compassionate, or vengeful, or angry. Each of these indicates the existence, but absence of its inverse- a condition contrary to God for God is absent of nothing. God simply is.