A Good Cause

               In the last post I ended by saying that I will continue the discussion with human value, and I feel that I missed a few points. The last post is open to some attacks because I tried to fit too much in one post, and I left out some important questions. Thus I will present the questions, and I will answer them accordingly.

                My last post ultimately stated that if one is to deny the existence of God on the basis of an evil world one would also have to explain the concept of evil without an ultimate foundation of a moral standard. This cannot be if the world is pure material because we would only bound by physical laws and that would be the ultimate truth. If one does point to a moral standard then one must recognize it as the ultimate state of being, or better yet, an ultimate being. One simply cannot have good or evil without a point of reference towards an ultimate good.

                Now if I was given this argument to be true-which I believe it is-then one can easily look at the question of evil being even more perplexing because (as Descartes demonstrated) one cannot take out more from the effect than the cause gives…Huh?...This argument works both ways when demonstrating that there is a God, and when one tries to attack Him. By analogy-if there is no God, and we have evolved, we are purely objects made of material and nothing more; we cannot get a personality from a non-personal object. We would be only physical material because our cause is only material-one cannot take out more from the effect then cause. Thus personality must come from a personal cause. And I will admit that some atheist prove their point of an impersonal cause by their own personality, or the lack thereof. Like mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski said about Richard Dawkins “…he’s a bit of a reptile…”

                But! Where do we get evil from? Once again one cannot take out more from the effect than the cause. Therefore we can easily deduce that evil must come from God. We are given personality by God and an evil personality must come out of the cause. This can easily be explained by two examples from my  last post.

                The case we have before us is a case of “less is more”. We are not taking out more from the cause but we are just taking the cause out. We really are not taking out more from the cause, but we are just abandoning it; evil is not evil for its own cause, but it is evil for a good cause. In the last post I referred to Ted Bundy (the serial killer). He didn’t consider himself to be wrong, but he murdered for pleasure. He had a good cause, yet it was perverted. Pleasure has always been good, but we as humans have perverted it. From relationships to prosperity we have abused it. If pleasure is left out of its proper framework then it will become misdirected.  We left our cause, and have less of true goodness and moved away from it. We don’t have evil for its own cause, but a perverted goodness as a substitute.

                As in light, darkness is not a fulfillment of itself, but an absence of something else. When light enters a room it fills up the room, but when it is cut off darkness enters. This is because darkness is just an absence of light. Christ had once said that we being evil know how to give good gifts. As fallen humanity we still are aware of good things, but are haunted by the absence of God-which is true goodness. That is why every evil effect has a good, but perverted, cause. God is not evil; he doesn’t have that in him. We are evil because we don’t have Him in us.