Knowing everything and allowing evil

[tackattack]

@Tack "Vanilla is necessary for the definition of chocolate"...sigh. What's the opposite of watermelon, since we can't define anything except by it's opposite? Or is this a special case? I don't think that "fact" is a fact at all........

@Chip, roger, roger, credit for the good, washes hands on the bad. Either your description of god is flawed, or your god is a tool......take your pick?

We can define things without their opposite. You can define what is evil to you and I can define what is evil to me, but from an objective perspective we can't come to an absolute definition. As RW eluded to, I'm a theist and my ethical system for subjective moraliy is something probably quite similar to yours. That helps me define my subjective morality. We can probably even come to a concensus one level up from that with societal morality. Seeing as you don't believe (I assume) in an objective morality though that's as far as we can go down the same road. I further define good and evil by my theology and use that to better my subjective definitions of what's good and evil. As our protestant friend chipan pointed out, the typical American theist defines God as good and everything not of God evil. I'm sure you've heard the references to God or Jesus being the light of the world. In context here the analogy would be God is light and evil would be the absence of light. You can't make things more evil or more dark, you can only take away more light. A Christian objective, generally, would then be to reflect as much of God's light as possible. That would make evil the absense of God and thus opposites. I hope that made sense.