“‘In the midst of life we are in death,’ said one; it is more true that in the midst of death we are in life. Life is the only reality; what men call death is but a shadow–a word for that which cannot be–a negation, owing the very idea of itself to that which it would deny. But for life there could be no death. If God were not, there would not even be nothing. Not even nothingness preceded life. Nothingness owes its very idea to existence.” —George MacDonald
It’s an interesting concept, isn’t it?
I once performed a narrative for my church about a Christian student debating with his atheist professor. I won’t share the whole thing, partly because I simply can’t remember, but the highlight of the main discussion was the argument the student proposed: you measure temperature by the amount of warmth, not by the cold. Cold is only there because of lack of heat. You can measure darkness only by the absence of light. We don’t measure light by how much darkness there is. You would not have darkness if it weren’t for light.
In the same way, Evil is not an independent force; the only way we can recognize evil is because of Good. Evil is the absence of Good. The only way we can see it is because we have a point of reference, a comparison, to Good.
And what would the atheists say to that? I know there are some out there who prescribe to the thought that existence is a completely random process, and that there are no forces of wrong and right in the universe.
Everything boils down to science and rock and chemicals and hormones and survival.
But how do you explain the way we can recognize that beating a child is inherently wrong? If there is no God, no structure, no moral obligation, why do we believe and act on those principals? If something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist. It’s simple math. Why do we strive to reach a standard that never existed to begin with? I often pull myself out of what some have called my ‘fundamentalist bubble,’ and really tried to imagine a world without God. I tried to explain to myself the reason for what is right and what is wrong without a Being who dictates what those things are to to start with. I couldn’t do it.
If God does not exist, and there really is no intrinsic value to life, and no moral laws…where did they come from? You can only measure how much you have by comparing it to something else. You can only know how cold it is by first experiencing warmth. For someone to say there is a wrong, there has to be a right.
The fact that we can recognize that there is a moral right and wrong at all proves that we have been exposed, and have experienced, moral, absolute truth. If that were untrue, we would be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. We would not even care. That is the only thing that can explain why we perceive the difference between the two. If you live by rules you must concede that there is a rule-setter.
And that is all I have to say…well, for now.
It’s nice when something finally clicks in your head, and you get it.
Is God good?
Yeah He is.