Third law of motion suggests so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Laws
Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.[14][b]
Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.[15][c]
Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.[d][e]
...
If you only have one of the two, you get imbalance, the universe/nature is all about balance, there's no good or bad for planets and stars, however there's gravitational force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#First_law
The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
...
You have light and you have absence of light
You can't have a hole without borders
You are on to something with this analogy. Consider 1&2 are conservation of momentum and 3 is balance of reaction. 1&2 are states, and 3 provides a hint of how to change the states.
Kirchoff (hated by Newton, and vice-verse) had two laws which were conservation and balance. In that 1) if you start at a place the sum of all effects back to the same place is zero (conservation), and 2) the sum of things flowing into a node equal that which flows out of a node (balance).
Anyway, I believe you're touching on the two concepts laid out. There is a discussion elsewhere in a different thread that mentions Ordo ab Chao which seems mysteriously close to what you're touching on.
>a discussion elsewhere in a different thread that mentions Ordo ab Chao which seems mysteriously close to what you're touching on.
poal.co/commentvotes/search/6ea7fcba-c236-4ce8-975e-b42dae370eab
This is an argument to answer the question of whether platonic evil can exist without platonic good. What you're arguing is correct, but that is not an answer to the question I'm asking.
I am asking about the forces of evil and forces of good.
We can argue there is evidence to suggest a great evil power. What I am asking is whether there is evidence of a great good power OR if a great good power must exist because a great evil one seems to. We are talking about entities, not concepts.
That evil exists (as a concept) and good is definitionally that which is antithetical to evil is irrelevant.
Good or evil is what you choose to do, first and foremost
Start here before looking elsewhere
The main difference between good and evil ultimately, is that you can choose to stop doing good anytime you want
If there was no force pushing the other way, the force in question would push all the way to the ultimate end of the spectrum.
If the force for good was taken away, the force for evil would immediately push the universe into an absolute entropic state.
Everything is cyclical, like a pendulum. This law is universal. The 2 forces push back and forth against each other.
The further we go into entropy, the more powerful the force for good becomes, but it's effects won't become very apparent until we have some momentum in the other direction.
How do you deduce this?
Who's to say the force in question (the evil one) desires a completely entropic state. Maybe it simply desires the suffering of the weak at the hands of the strong.
(post is archived)