I want to go further in the discussion by asking us to consider evil, by Derrida's deconstruction process, as a différance of good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, in literary analysis, in other fields, or in a way that transcends the boundaries of such fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance

Différance is a French term coined by Jacques Derrida and homophonous with the word "différence". Différance plays on the fact that the French word différer means both "to defer" and "to differ." Derrida first uses the term différance in his 1963 paper "Cogito et histoire de la folie"[1]. The term différance then played a key role in Derrida's engagement with the philosophy of Edmund Husserl in Speech and Phenomena. The term was then elaborated in various other works, notably in his essay "Différance" and in various interviews collected in Positions.[2]

In the essay "Différance" Derrida indicates that différance gestures at a number of heterogeneous features which govern the production of textual meaning. The first (relating to deferral) is the notion that words and signs can never fully summon forth what they mean, but can only be defined through appeal to additional words, from which they differ. Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. The second (relating to difference, sometimes referred to as espacement or "spacing" concerns the force which differentiates elements from one another and, in so doing, engenders binary oppositions and hierarchies which underpin meaning itself.

Illustration of différance

For example, the word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", "hovel", "hours", "hows", "horse", etc. etc., than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified). Not only are the differences between the words relevant here, but the differentials between the images signified are also covered by différance. Deferral also comes into play, as the words that occur following "house" in any expression will revise the meaning of that word, sometimes dramatically so.

Thus, complete meaning is always postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and total. A simple example would consist of looking up a given word in a dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words found in that word's definition, etc., and such a process would never end. Roland Barthes describes this in his essay "Death of the Author." A language is a self-contained relationship between various signifiers. A symbol is defined by its relation to other symbols, and yet those other symbols are only different from it in as much as they have a different relation to each other than it does. But then, what are they in themselves? Where is this elusive "meaning" in which they are supposed to terminate?

I believe evil is only to be defined in différance of good, and this deconstruction will progressively indicate various bipolar oppositions in a supposedly endless chain of signifiers. This is one reason why I think one cannot get to that point where evil was in initial existence prior to the "beginning" or creation onset.

InesQor:

@sinequanon:

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.

Our difference of opinion (which is fine  ) is down to the attitude, imo, as I stated.

In the absence of any vulnerability in the comprehender, the 'evil' effect is not there at all. There may be an INTENDED 'evil' effect, but the confusion therein resides wholly with the party who intends it and is confounded.

The sort of comprehension I refer to does not "combat" anything. The whole point about comprehension is that it apprehends the entire picture.

sinequanon:

Our difference of opinion (which is fine  ) is down to the attitude, imo, as I stated.

In the absence of any vulnerability in the comprehender, the 'evil' effect is not there at all. There may be an INTENDED 'evil' effect, but the confusion therein resides wholly with the party who intends it and is confounded.

The sort of comprehension I refer to does not "combat" anything. The whole point about comprehension is that it apprehends the entire picture.

So, what do you say about the very knowledgeable guy who was mugged and killed in a dark alley, say, in Gotham city  ?  How does his ignorance or the lack thereof, of the EVIL intentions of his assailant, help him in the face of evil? True, the vulnerability of the guy in that circumstance is the fact that he does not know the terrain as well as his assailant, he may not be able to get help and he may even be outnumbered. But assume that he KNEW of all this previously, how does it dispel the evil assailant's intention?

I understand your point about vulnerability, but I will like to maintain that there are aspects of evil that carry out their purposes with or without your consent and / or assumed vulnerability. In the case of the mugged guy, a wholesome comprehension that encircles the whole picture, may involve a high-skilled prior training in martial arts, or defence by means of a lethal weapon, or maybe a call out to Batman who had been hiding in the shadows  .

This is why I said the EFFECTS of the evil upon the agent can be controlled by comprehension, or can be worsened due to ignorance, it is all dependent on the amount of information available to the agent. But the evil in itself? It will run its course even in the face of "knowledge", as intended by the extant agent.

My understanding is this: Everything was created by God for GOOD reason & purposes. Unfortunately the creation itself/themselves has a mind of its own to do things against His will.

InesQor:

So, what do you say about the very knowledgeable guy who was mugged and killed in a dark alley, say, in Gotham city  ?   How does his ignorance or the lack thereof, of the EVIL intentions of his assailant, help him in the face of evil? True, the vulnerability of the guy in that circumstance is the fact that he does not know the terrain as well as his assailant, he may not be able to get help and he may even be outnumbered. But assume that he KNEW of all this previously, how does it dispel the evil assailant's intention?

I said that the intention remains. We need to be clear about that.

The evil itself resides only where comprehension lacks. In this case, presumably, the guy did not 'foresee that he would' be attacked.

He is human after all, and some may say that humans do not have the luxury of such comprehension (I would disagree, btw). In any case, it would be tangential to my actual assertion that evil resides only where comprehension lacks.

There may be limits to human comprehension. One may have to discard defining aspects of ones humanity to develop ones comprehension in a certain way, including aspects vested in human morphology. i.e one would have to actually 'pass on' to gain certain comprehension, or humanity itself evolve in its very essence and density out of all recognition.

And with that evolved or otherwise attained essence, reflecting a higher comprehension, the mugger in the alley may as well have been swiping at spirits.

So there is an intermediate level of comprehension whereby the person 'foresaw' and avoided the attack, and the higher, mortally unattainable level, whereby such attack is impossible.

InesQor:
I understand your point about vulnerability, but I will like to maintain that there are aspects of evil that carry out their purposes with or without your consent and / or assumed vulnerability. In the case of the mugged guy, a wholesome comprehension that encircles the whole picture, may involve a high-skilled prior training in martial arts, or defence by means of a lethal weapon, or maybe a call out to Batman who had been hiding in the shadows  .

The human context is bound in its limited comprehension.

The body, as an evolution of substance, is vulnerable by value of the comprehension that produced it. I could get into my opinions on evolution, but you can already see that they are far from Darwinian, encompassing what some may term the metaphysical.  

InesQor:
This is why I said the EFFECTS of the evil upon the agent can be controlled by comprehension, or can be worsened due to ignorance, it is all dependent on the amount of information available to the agent. But the evil in itself? It will run its course even in the face of "knowledge", as intended by the extant agent.

I believe I have understood the essence of your point, but disagree as I have outlined above.

@afiq:

afiq:

My understanding is this: Everything was created by God for GOOD reason & purposes. Unfortunately the creation itself/themselves has a mind of its own to do things against His will.

Thanks for the comment, afiq. However, may I balance out your statement and add that there are also elements of creation that, I believe, do not have a mind to subvert God's will?

@sinequanon: Now I understand your perspective, it borders on metaphysical comprehension, and not just a mental form of comprehension. Very intriguing, I must say. Let us agree to disagree!

InesQor:

@sinequanon: Now I understand your perspective, it borders on metaphysical comprehension, and not just a mental form of comprehension. Very intriguing, I must say. Let us agree to disagree!

Yes. (Personally, I don't differentiate 'physical' and 'metaphysical'. I only use the terms for ease of communcation with those who do.)

Peace. 

@InesQor:

This post is absolutely brilliant!

InesQor:

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.

InesQor:

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.

Please read this quoted above again and realize instantly that it is a wholesale concession that both darkness and light are self-existent, eternal and uncreated.

And since you state that Satan is the personification of darkness then you imply that Satan has always existed and is therefore uncreated.

We are going round in circles.

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).

Is there any such thing as “light” in its essential form without reference to the darkness which it is the reverse of?

Can either exist without reference to the other?

Can there exist a concept of “up” without the reverse and simultaneous existence of a concept of “down.?”

Does it make any sense to suggest that at some point in time, only “up” existed and “down” did not exist?

I hope you see what I am getting at – none of these can exist without the parallel and simultaneous existence of the reverse.

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.

If this is true then the direct implication is that Satan does not exist.

Because you defined him as the personification of Darkness – and you have now said that Darkness does not really exist.

You need to re-examine your propositions – they are contradictory.

DeepSight:

What he has said is that darkness CANNOT be total. Its definition is an absence of light but the definition only suggests the "concept" of darkness without it truly being possible. In effect, light can be absolute but darkness is not total. Another way is that knowledge is possible but total ignorance/stupidity isn't. Instinct makes the totality of ignorance/stupidity impossible.

Go through his statement below again

QUOTE
Light => Principles of Light => Principles of Darkness => Darkness (NOT COMPLETE)
and/or
Good => Original intents and harmony of God's intents in creation => Adverse intents to harmony in God's intents => Acts of Evil
UNQUOTE

Could it be taken in reverse? Obviously NO! Adverse intents did not arise simulteneously with God's original harmony but AS A RESULT OF THEM. One came BEFORE THE other. And after them, came evil. That would suppose evil was not at the beginning and thus, was created! Simple and very brilliant of the poster, I must say.

But why am I bothering to write this when NL knows your intent is to win, rain or shine, fair or not? We all know you get it!

^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

Let's understand you: how do you make 'something' and 'nothing' to be 'eternal'?

^^^ Let's not jump the gun - i dont want to get confused: i need to know if the OP regards "darkness" as nothing, given his statements.

We can proceed from there.

^^ Okay then. Perhaps I'll come back to this same point for a particular reason.

You get it, DeepSight, we know you do.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

wrong! both exist. However, one is a product of the creation (or presence) of the other. Both are preceded by something else and THUS, are not eternal andself sustaining

@Nuclearboy:

nuclearboy:

@InesQor:
This post is absolutely brilliant!

Thanks, bro!  I have not been on this forum all day. On the other hand, Philosophy / Metaphysics is seen by some others as the fruits of an idle mind 

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

Please read this quoted above again and realize instantly that it is a wholesale concession that both darkness and light are self-existent, eternal and uncreated.

Whoa!! Steady! I see no such wholesale concession that darkness is self-existent, eternal or uncreated. In fact, that quoted paragraph of mine  says exactly the opposite of what you are insinuating.

See,

It is impossible for there to be complete darkness, speaking scientifically. It is only possible to have a highly reduced amount of light.

which means that darkness is defined relative to light. Since we cannot define "total darkness", then it is impossible that it once existed irrespective of total light. Darkness, I said, is a highly reduced amount of light, it thus CANNOT be self-existent or eternal or uncreated. It is existent with respect to light, it is only as time-definite as the moment it receded from the light and reduced light's intensity in its immediate position, and it was "created" by the principles of darkness i.e. a reduced influence of ambient light CREATES darkness. You can't say I said what I didn't.

Deep Sight:

And since you state that Satan is the personification of darkness then you imply that Satan has always existed and is therefore uncreated.

We are going round in circles.

I believe I have handled this in the above. Satan never "always existed". More on this in the next part of this post, where we will indeed go round in circles  .

Deep Sight:

Is there any such thing as “light” in its essential form without reference to the darkness which it is the reverse of?

Can either exist without reference to the other?

Can there exist a concept of “up” without the reverse and simultaneous existence of a concept of “down.?”

Does it make any sense to suggest that at some point in time, only “up” existed and “down” did not exist?

I hope you see what I am getting at – none of these can exist without the parallel and simultaneous existence of the reverse.

I am certain you have seen this aged question before: Is the cup half empty or half full? Well the truth is that whatever it is, it didn't start out that way. The cup either began to exist as an empty cup or as a full cup.

Your illustration of "up" and "down" too is quite relative. The one who mentions the words "up" and "down" is midway. He could never really have started out midway (unless you refer to the fallacy of Zeno's paradox) and as such, an absolute beginning would either have been from the TOP or the BOTTOM. Thus, at the beginning, either DOWN or UP alone would have existed. Today, we can refer to DOWN and UP because we are not at the beginning. We are midway. The same goes for light and darkness, we are not at the beginning, we are laggards in the schemes of light and darkness. We are midway. At the START, only ONE could have been present and not both.

In light of that (no pun intended), it was either ALL darkness to begin with, or ALL light to begin with. In our metaphysical analogy, all darkness would indicate that Satan is the first cause; which cannot be because by definition of our premise in this argument, God is the first cause. Thus, existence began as ALL light.

The personification of darkness, i.e. Satan, came into being when he operated along the principles of darkness by countering the principles of light and receding from the LIGHT, God.

We need to examine these "principles of light" and "principles of darkness" to better understand light and darkness.

If you agree that God is the prime mover, then he is self-existent; so at the start, it was ALL LIGHT. But all light means "ALL" were "LIGHT" and thus indicates the principle of LIGHT: there is an equal ambience of luminosity when ALL agents / elements are on a par with the initial 100% light. That is the principle of light. But the principle of light exists in a duality: there can be no principle of light without a principle of darkness. What I mean is that the principle of light states that when ALL elements are on a par with the first cause, there is an equal luminosity in the elements, THEREFORE when NOT ALL elements are on a par with the first cause, THOSE anomalies (with respect to the first cause) would be operating in the principle of darkness, which would state that they are in an exclusion to the otherwise equal ambience of luminosity as found in the first cause. The collation of these elements operating in the principles of darkness would be termed "The Darkness", no matter how variant the elements are.

At this point, I can't resist inserting the below  :

Deep Sight:

We are going round in circles.

For instance, I am the first cause of perfect circles, and that is the only shape that exists. So I draw a perfect circle by hand, and you are invited to replicate it. As long as you replicate a perfect circle, you have drawn a perfect circle, and you are at a par with me. You are operating by the principle of perfect circles and we have equal conic relevance  . Since I am the first cause of perfect hand-drawn circles, you who have followed in my footstep may not draw the same perfect circle (with the same radius and coordinates of center) i.e. you are not exactly ME, the first cause, but you draw a perfect circle BY my principle of perfect circles. But the fact that such a principle of perfect circles exists, means that it is as well possible for a circle to be hand-drawn and be imperfect. Thus the principle of imperfect circles will be forced to exist as well, because there will be a POSSIBILITY of describing imperfect circles (no matter how little), even though an IMPOSSIBILITY of describing perfect circles was never the case.

A guy who used to draw perfect circles decides that he wants something else (hitherto undefined) so he deviates from the principle of perfect circles, and the circle is wobbled on a side. He has just operated by the principle of imperfect circles (which used to exist SINCE the principle of perfect circles existed). IMPERFECT circles NEVER existed UNTIL this first guy operated by the principle of imperfect circles and drew one. Thus, he has become the prime mover for imperfect circles. Some of his pals also choose not to draw a perfect circle like they used to, so they draw imperfect circles, all of the drawings are "NOT circles". Some are walnut-shaped, some are ellipses, etc. The only common definition is that they are NOT circles.

Darkness is a "NOT light", its a deviation from light, it is an absence of light to a degree. There are various degrees of darkness. One cannot refer to a complete darkness, because each darkness is complete in itself. Back to the circles, a 98% circle is a complete 2% deviation from a circle. Even a 0.0000000000001% circle is a complete 99.9999999999999% deviation, as a 99.9999999999999% circle is also a complete 0.0000000000001% deviation. There would be no "0% circle" i.e. 100% deviation, theoretically because all shapes that exist are defined with respect to the circle, the first shape ever.

I hope you have now come full circle. 

Deep Sight:

If this is true then the direct implication is that Satan does not exist.

Because you defined him as the personification of Darkness – and you have now said that Darkness does not really exist.

You need to re-examine your propositions – they are contradictory.

I never said Darkness does not really exist. I said a TOTAL DARKNESS independent of light does not exist. And that is true for Satan. God, the Light, still knows Satan's every thought and plan. Satan has not totally broken free of God and run gamut doing his own thing. Darkness can never be defined outside of light.

Darkness is an absence of light to a degree, a situation in which there is a relative "distance" between the ambient position and the initial light source illuminating (or that could have been illuminating) it.

@nuclearboy:

Yes you understood my logical perspective on the first generation of darkness. Thanks.

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong  -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

Light is Something.
Darkness is ALSO Something.
In the above, the something is a lack of the influence of the something. But they are both substances, each in its own right. Nuclearboy has responded, and I agree with him too.

@viaro: That's a good question for Deep Sight. I will like to see his response on that.

^^ Another brilliant score.

I now understand Nuclearboy's concerns better:

nuclearboy:

You get it, DeepSight, we know you do.

viaro:

^^ Another brilliant score.

I now understand Nuclearboy's concerns better:

Thanks viaro. But I really hope this discussion, to any of us, is not all about "scoring"!

Interesting topic. But which light and darkness are we talking about? It is physical light or the Primordial Light? Is it physical darkness or metaphorical darkness?

Here are some things that we must take into account. There are two types of darkness, the darkness that exists within creation and the darkness outside creation.

Here is what I mean: Before God said, "Let there be light," there was nothing but complete darkness. This darkness existed before creation and will continue to exist if creation ceases to exist. This darkness is nothing but void. It is nothingness. It is not relative to any light; thus it is complete darkness, or complete nothingness.

God is the primordial light that has always existed, but before creation came into being; before the words, "Let there be light," the light of God remained within the boundaries of the Divine plane, ie the Light of God remained with God. But with the words, "Let there be Light," God allowed His light to travel beyond His immediate vicinity and into the utter darkness or nothingness that existed outside of the boundary of the Devin plane. Creation has its origin in this Light; this is how creation came into being.

Thus within creation there is nothing like utter darkness. The darkness within creation is always relative to the light. This is a different darkness from the darkness that exists outside of creation. The closer a plane of creation is to the vicinity of God, the more it will be illumined; thus it will have more light. The further away a plane of creation is from God, the less will light be found on the plane. But there is light in all parts of creation, and no part of creation can ever be in utter darkness. The darkness in any part of creation is only relative to the amount of light there. Darkness is absence of light.

However creatures in creation, ie man can make himself unable to recognise light. To such a man, he is in a plane of utter darkness, ie in the dark regions like hell. However the man is actually not in utter darkness, if he exercises his spirit by doing good, he will gradually recognise that he is surrounded by light. Only the spirit can recognise light which only comes from God.

I am summarising a lot in-order to shorten my post. However, I can elaborate on any of the above if need be.

@InesQor
I think you are brilliant, but here are some things that I will like you to consider:

InesQor:

@Deep Sight:Whoa!! Steady! I see no such wholesale concession that darkness is self-existent, eternal or uncreated. In fact, that quoted paragraph of mine  says exactly the opposite of what you are insinuating.

The darkness that existed before God said, "Let there be light," can actually be considered as "self-existent, eternal or uncreated."

This darkness is nothing but void. It still exist today outside creation. Creation is not limitless; beyond the boundary of creation, outside creation, or below creation only nothingness, void or darkness exists.

However, man or any creature cannever experience this darkness because man and creatures have their origin in creation and cannever travel outside creation.

InesQor:

See,which means that darkness is defined relative to light. Since we cannot define "total darkness", then it is impossible that it once existed irrespective of total light. Darkness, I said, is a highly reduced amount of light, it thus CANNOT be self-existent or eternal or uncreated. It is existent with respect to light, it is only as time-definite as the moment it receded from the light and reduced light's intensity in its immediate position, and it was "created" by the principles of darkness i.e. a reduced influence of ambient light CREATES darkness. You can't say I said what I didn't.
I believe I have handled this in the above. Satan never "always existed". More on this in the next part of this post, where we will indeed go round in circles  .

Your explanation above about darkness is true to a certain extent only. Your explanation is only correct if attributed to the darkness within creation. My perception is that your explanation is wrong if attributed to the darkness outside creation. Thus you only explained darkness within creation, and not the darkness whitout or outside creation.

On Satan, you are also right only to a certain extent. Satan never "always existed," but Lucifer had always existed. Lucifer is not God, he is dependant on the power of God; but his origin lies far above creation. Therefore Lucifer can fall into the utter darkness outside creation, because Lucifer is not part of creation. Lucifer originated in the Divine plane, but not in God himself(Lucifer is not a part of God like Jesus). Lucifer was a powerful angel. When Lucifer strayed from the will of God by setting sneers for mankind, he became Satan. Thus Satan has not always existed; Lucifer became Satan when he disobeyed God. However, Lucifer is eternal, he is not a created being.

I know this may be hard to follow but I can throw in more explanation if need be.   

InesQor:



If you agree that God is the prime mover, then he is self-existent; so at the start, it was ALL LIGHT. But all light means "ALL" were "LIGHT" and thus indicates the principle of LIGHT: there is an equal ambience of luminosity when ALL agents / elements are on a par with the initial 100% light. That is the principle of light. But the principle of light exists in a duality: there can be no principle of light without a principle of darkness. What I mean is that the principle of light states that when ALL elements are on a par with the first cause, there is an equal luminosity in the elements, THEREFORE when NOT ALL elements are on a par with the first cause, THOSE anomalies (with respect to the first cause) would be operating in the principle of darkness, which would state that they are in an exclusion to the otherwise equal ambience of luminosity as found in the first cause. The collation of these elements operating in the principles of darkness would be termed "The Darkness", no matter how variant the elements are.

Here I disagree with you. My perception is that it is wrong to say that " there can be no principle of light without a principle of darkness."

Light and darkness do not represent the principle of duality which exist in creation. All That God created is good, and God also created duality. Both poles of duality are good; darkness need not come into it at all. Ie, man and woman is an expression of the principle of duality; man is active while woman is passive. But both man and woman are good, or can be good.  All dualities are found within goodness or within the light. The yin and yang does not represent good and evil, rather it represents the active and the passive. And both the active and the passive are good. They both wing in the will of God.

But darkness is something entirely different. Darkness cannever swing in the will of God. Darkness results in the absence of the will of God. Light is the will of God, or light results where the will of God is observed.  Therefore Light and darkness are not duality.

Actually darkness should not exist within creation. It is man who introduces darkness into creation by the wrong use of his free will. Darkness was not created by God, and darkness need not exist in creation.

But light has to exist, because where there is no light, there can be no life.  Life requires light(the primordial light of God, the will of God) to exist. But life can exist and actually functions better without darkness. Actaully creation cannot exsist without the Primodial Light, creation has its origin in the light(Let there be Light) of God. Creation can exsist without darkness.


Thanks and remain blessed.

InesQor:

Thanks viaro. But I really hope this discussion, to any of us, is not all about "scoring"!

Astute observation there. I concur it should not be about 'scoring' points or otherwise. For want of a better expression, I simply used the word 'score' rather than 'piece' (as 'another brilliant piece'). Sorry about the mix-up.

Howdy justcool,

I shoul not preempt the point I'd wanted to highlight in DeepSight's consideration about 'something' and 'nothing', but reading yours seem to give me the impression that you've got it quite mixed-up:

(a) First, you tried to distinguish between types of the variables considered:

                 _{physical                                          physical}
               Light                                          Darkness 
                 ^{primordial                                       metaphorical}

(b) Yet, in your opening remarks, you seemed to have confused them for almost the same things:

[list]

There are two types of darkness, the darkness that exists within creation and the darkness outside creation.

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^^^[/list]
[list]But one wonders which type of darkness you were discussing consequently: was it physical darkness, or metaphorical darkness? Which one between those are you advancing as being within and outside creation?[/list]
[list]

Here is what I mean: Before God said, "Let there be light," there was nothing but complete darkness. This darkness existed before creation and will continue to exist if creation ceases to exist. This darkness is nothing but void. It is nothingness. It is not relative to any light; thus it is complete darkness, or complete nothingness.

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^^^[/list]
[list]So, when you say "complete darkness" as existing before creation, are you referring to "physical darkness" or "metaphorical darkness"? If it is physical, it could not be "nothingness"; and if metaphorical, it did not exist whether within or outside creation. Which is which?[/list]
[list]

God is the primordial light that has always existed, but before creation came into being; before the words, "Let there be light," the light of God remained within the boundaries of the Divine plane, ie the Light of God remained with God. But with the words, "Let there be Light," God allowed His light to travel beyond His immediate vicinity and into the utter darkness or nothingness that existed outside of the boundary of the Devin plane. Creation has its origin in this Light; this is how creation came into being.

[/list]

Did you consider for a minute that you have just collapse your own premise? Here:

    ~~  complete darkness existed before creation
    ~~  but there was a Light in God's vicinity

Dude, if darkness was absolute and complete, there could not be any light anywhere at all! That is the simple point you guys haven't got up until now. What you have just done is affirmed that there is nothing like 'complete darkness' if Light was in the equation somewhere - whether it was somewhere else (God's vicinity as you say) or elsewhere.

The darkness you postulated is simply an idea, and was not articulated - you did not show us which of the darkness between "physical" and "metaphorical" you were referring to; so how could it be "complete" and yet be "nothingness"? (This was one reason I asked DeepSight to make himself clearer initially, but I shall await his consequent inputs).

Your "complete darkness" is not absolute in itself, other than the fact that it is relative to Light. We have to understand what exactly you mean by "nothingness" between the "physical" and "metaphorical" darkness in your postulations.

You might want to go back and reconsider your points; or better still show us where you're drawing your ideas from (the Bible, presumably) and we shall discuss this to its basics.

justcool:

On Satan, you are also right only to a certain extent. Satan never "always existed," but Lucifer had always existed. Lucifer is not God, he is dependant on the power of God; but his origin lies far above creation. Therefore Lucifer can fall into the utter darkness outside creation, because Lucifer is not part of creation. Lucifer originated in the Divine plane, but not in God himself(Lucifer is not a part of God like Jesus). Lucifer was a powerful angel. When Lucifer strayed from the will of God by setting sneers for mankind, he became Satan. Thus Satan has not always existed; Lucifer became Satan when he disobeyed God. However, Lucifer is eternal, he is not a created being.

I know this may be hard to follow but I can throw in more explanation if need be.

Please show us what you mean by Lucifer, and your source for your conclusions. There are very pertinent questions I wish to set before you on that, which if you cannot answer, then you would simply have to withdraw your assertions about Lucifer being eternal and not a created being.

Viaro, I didnt mean it that way. I apologize if you are offended. No vex.

Justcool, hope you are just cool?

I was interchangeably using metaphorical and physical light. Physical light is the palpable-to-creation representation of God's all-reaching relevance in any sphere of existence, i.e. the metaphorical light. Physical light gives all things the license to be clearly visible the way their existence intended, Spiritual light gives all things the license to work in divine harmony the way their existence intended. Physical darkness occludes clear visibility by a loss of influence of light, Spiritual darkness occludes divine harmony by a loss of the influence of light. Neither occlusion can be total, darkness in either form cannot be complete because light will always be present regardless of the relative distance from it.

Here's MY quick review: God is the FIRST agent, and at the start, there was no other entity,agent, substance, cause or concept. There was no "something" besides him. There was no "nothing" besides him. He was ALL there is and could be. A rough physical analogy for the eternal pre-creation existence is a solid marble block BEFORE it is chiseled out to form a sculpture, its the same way existentiality/creation was engendered, birthed from God. Everything in and outside creation was carved out from God, by God. The big difference is that nothing was LOST the way marble is wasted when chiseling. Rather than wasting the parts chiseled away to form creation, God made them inaccessible to creation. Yes, I believe there are aspects of existence "outside" or "besides" creation (since creation CAME OUT OF God), but those aspects are inaccessible to creation, they are 'hidden in God', "known only to God", and metaphorical darkness is definitely not part of that exclusion, being a creation as well. God's initial move was Light (divine harmony), and by virtue of that, a perfect creation was birthed. The fact that it was perfect yielded a POSSIBILITY of imperfection, but this possibility could not do anything unless ANOTHER agent, also a part of creation, makes use of the possibility by being an element of occlusion of that Light. The agent called Satan is part of creation, and I sincerely do not know his original name before he sinned, it may not have been Lucifer, as a poster also asserted earlier on in the thread.

I believe my other concerns have been attended by viaro, but I believe I am willing to answer other questions and/or clarify my stand.

^^
@InesQor, howdy?
No, I wasn't offended at all. I should've been more sensitive earlier.

This thread has kept me busy in deeper thoughts than I ever concerned myself with in the past. My deepest appreciations to all posters, and especially to you for raising th subject.

Great thread, very interesting and some absolutely brilliant stuff.

Now, I anxiously am waiting for devilsadvocate's DeepSight's attempt at a rebuttal. Guy MUST "come" back even when he knows he ought not and has no leg to stand on. Its simply an obsession.

I wonder if smoking serious marijuana being a lawyer can actually make you believe you can fly (when you have no leg to stand on and need to float to hang on)

@deepstout:

Respects, Sir! I'm on your side. I only wish you'd come to the right side in these discussions

@Viaro: Oh Im fine, thanks. Thanks too for your most valuable contributions. Pls when you are done ruminating, let's have some more! I guess the chains of thoughts in the OP all started when I registered and typed in my signature, then I thought: What darkness was to be lighted up, really, and how?

@nuclearboy: marijuana and deep stout? You are so funny!

InesQor:

@nuclearboy: marijuana and deep stout? You are so funny!

Quite a combination, ehn? How it goes is, you start off with a sharp head and education, throw in those two ^^^, add as much fornicating as can be imagined, finish off with the words "oneness of infinity" and out of the darkness comes, you got it, DeepSight!

Mark my words, your rebuttal is coming and we'll be back where your circle began

Nuclear my Oga! ! !

You don finish me oooo! ! !

This cracked me up sooo hard, i had tears rolling down my cheeks as i laughed -

nuclearboy:

Quite a combination, ehn? How it goes is, you start off with a sharp head and education, throw in those two ^^^, add as much fornicating as can be imagined, finish off with the words "oneness of infinity" and out of the darkness comes, you got it, DeepSight!

Am i really that horrible? ? ?

@ OP & All - i absolutely love the posts and thought development going on here. I am glad to see some questions earlier raised have sparked off some thoughts.

I will revert with my thoughts.

_{And Nuclearboy please stop thinking i do this just for fun, that is not the case.}

Its not horrible, Sir, its just you!

And you're right - I ought to stop thinking you're practising for court-room drama here, but I just can't. You refuse me that liberty when you deliberately refuse to see whats obvious to everyone. So maybe its for work and not for fun

Meanwhile, another epiphany - I start to wonder if InesQor isn't MavenBox who is also Viaro - where is Maven on this thread? All these over brained people are making me dizzy. Sadly, stout is out of it to help me thru the mental contortions

nuclearboy:

Meanwhile, another epiphany - I start to wonder if InesQor isn't MavenBox who is also Viaro - where is Maven on this thread? All these over brained people are making me dizzy. Sadly, stout is out of it to help me thru the mental contortions

Oh lawd! Now viaro's dead meat!


_{what can viaro do so I could return to my carbonated horlicks drink, huh?}

@InesQor:

Don't worry. That was actually a compliment if you know the mental spread of those being compared to you. Viaro particularly routinely sounds like he grabbed the thoughts out of the best minds on NL (how do you always steal only the best thoughts and never the wrong ones) and only people I wouldn't say could be him atimes are myself and DeepSight. Me cos I'm not a good mind but seem to sense most of these things whist he has all the technical precise knowledge and relevant links.

Deepsight is a special case where Viaro is concerned. Seems one of them was with Light and the other was the darkness - thats how far apart they are.