Well, I could just as easily argue that Good is an absence of Evil. By not committing evil, one is being good. And it seems to me that God (and/or his designated representatives) spent more time making lists of things that were evil than things that were good, therefore evilness is a more valid basis on which to measure morality. Remember, one of the key phrases that keeps coming up in Christian theology is "being without sin"
I suspect Mr Sparks's supposition is a basis for an argument that if one is not actively doing good, then one is evil, a restatement of the "If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem" paradigm. I think that the Mr Sparks's argument falls down by not acknowledging that good and evil acts are both departures from moral neutrality, where good acts give pleasure to others or reduce pain and evil acts do the reverse, but part of this is that my definition of Good and Evil differs from his.
A question occurs to me at this time: can one commit an act that is both good and evil at the same time?
(no subject)
I suspect Mr Sparks's supposition is a basis for an argument that if one is not actively doing good, then one is evil, a restatement of the "If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem" paradigm. I think that the Mr Sparks's argument falls down by not acknowledging that good and evil acts are both departures from moral neutrality, where good acts give pleasure to others or reduce pain and evil acts do the reverse, but part of this is that my definition of Good and Evil differs from his.
A question occurs to me at this time: can one commit an act that is both good and evil at the same time?
Absolutely....
Diverting a river to provide needed water to a drought starved village is Good.
Diverting a river that kills off a wetland where hundreds of species of animals live is Evil.