NationStates Jolt Archive

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html

Sodom and Gomorra = God's work. A skeptic would deem it a naturally occuring fire (lightning, maybe. Or maybe some idiot just dropped a torch.)

My view on it is, God's using nature, which He created and He commands, to carry out His will. God is the force behind the cosmos and everything in it.

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html

If there is no universal concept of good and evil, then there really can't be a benevolent Supreme Being, can there? If there is a benevolent Supreme Being, then natural good and evil do exist.

Ergo, if God exists, he's a dick.

Ergo, if God exists, he's a dick.

Firstly, since most non-religious people on this forum and elsewhere would say that there is no universal morality they can therefore not use natural evil as an arguement against God

Secondly, lets assume God stoped all the big natural disasters of the world, then people would be outraged by the lesser ones, storms, monsoons etc. Then God would get rid of those and then people would get angry about nature causing them any inconvience and so on and so on. Where do we draw the line?

Firstly, since most non-religious people on this forum and elsewhere would say that there is no universal morality they can therefore not use natural evil as an arguement against God

Secondly, lets assume God stoped all the big natural disasters of the world, then people would be outraged by the lesser ones, storms, monsoons etc. Then God would get rid of those and then people would get angry about nature causing them any inconvience and so on and so on. Where do we draw the line?
Do I smell a slippery slope? Remember even though Slippery Slope arguments are not necessarily fallacies, they inevitably lead to other fallacies. :D

Firstly, since most non-religious people on this forum and elsewhere would say that there is no universal morality they can therefore not use natural evil as an arguement against God
Says who? Says you and a poorly written article. What happens if I disagree with what you've just said? Your making an arguement which you haven't proven and then saying well because I'm right you can't use arguement A against arguement B. Thats a pile of bullshit right there.

Secondly, lets assume God stoped all the big natural disasters of the world, then people would be outraged by the lesser ones, storms, monsoons etc. Then God would get rid of those and then people would get angry about nature causing them any inconvience and so on and so on. Where do we draw the line?
I'm pretty sure we'd draw the line at utopia because you know that would be so much better then well what we've got now.

Please explain how natural disasters are "evil"?

My initial reaction to this sentiment is that it lessens what true evil is.

Firstly, since most non-religious people on this forum and elsewhere would say that there is no universal morality they can therefore not use natural evil as an arguement against God

Secondly, lets assume God stoped all the big natural disasters of the world, then people would be outraged by the lesser ones, storms, monsoons etc. Then God would get rid of those and then people would get angry about nature causing them any inconvience and so on and so on. Where do we draw the line?

1. Most non-religious people still beleive in a universal morality. They're stupid, what can I say.
2. In any case, the point of the argument is not to say that God is evil in an abstract sense but to say that God is evil according to his own rules, and thus hypocritical. God says thou shalt not kill, then goes and kills people, yet still claims to be benevolent. That might be ok according to real morality, but its not ok according to God's morality.
3. Let's look at this with an analogy. Let's say everyone listened to God and stopped killing. Then God would complain about all the people who were hurting others without killing them, so people would have to stop that. Then God would complain about all the people who were hurting other's feelings, so they'd have to stop that. You see where this is going?

Please explain how natural disasters are "evil"?

My initial reaction to this sentiment is that it lessens what true evil is.

The idea is more that the act of causing natural disasters is evil. Like if some crazy dictator put a bomb on the ocean floor and caused a massive tsunami killing millions of his enemies, that would be evil. Same if a supernatural being did it.

First off, isn't God and Satan/Lucifer a massive line of universal good & evil? So, technically, if there is no universal concept of good or evil, then there cannot be a God or Satan, thus you have disproven your own statement in the exact same post. Rather hard thing to do.

Why does some zealous theist or atheist always have to come along and try and sound like a grand prophet? Doesn't anyone get tired of these constant arguments on here that are usually verified by some rather unsubstantial thing? I was arguing with a friend a few days about God. I tell him to give me proof that God exists. He says, quite simply, "Miracles." Reminds me alot of this site, he does he does. Not everyone is like this, but alot.

Natural Disasters I don't think can be characterized as “good” or “evil” for the most part that they are well... "natural" they are forces that are just as inetivable as death and war. It what the affect and due which i think leads to a different path and view.
Me personally, I don’t think “good” or “evil” can even be used in a debate like this. My view of a “good” natural disaster may be completely different from someone else’s, and my view shouldn’t matter.(Katrina here is beleived to be a "call from god" yet the tsunami and earth quake in pakistan killed more people, not to mention the Iraq war left more Iraqi's dead then New Orleans residents from Katrina. One wake up call here is nothing to the wake up call to the Pakistani people who feel betrayed by the US, which they have done so much for... lets plz stay away from politics but just take that into account) Instead of the vague terms “good” and “evil” perhaps can we stay to clearer statements? Such as “more beneficial” “more cataclysmic then…” or “justifiable due to the amount of deaths against…”

1. Most non-religious people still beleive in a universal morality. They're stupid, what can I say.

Universal morality supports God's existance. See Kant's work on that.


2. In any case, the point of the argument is not to say that God is evil in an abstract sense but to say that God is evil according to his own rules, and thus hypocritical. God says thou shalt not kill, then goes and kills people, yet still claims to be benevolent. That might be ok according to real morality, but its not ok according to God's morality.

There you presupose that it is God causing the natural disasters, or that it is Gods reponsabilty to stop them


3. Let's look at this with an analogy. Let's say everyone listened to God and stopped killing. Then God would complain about all the people who were hurting others without killing them, so people would have to stop that. Then God would complain about all the people who were hurting other's feelings, so they'd have to stop that. You see where this is going?

God originally designed us to live the way he set out (IE in his image). The reason he asks those things of us is that that is how we were ment to be.

watch the movie Dogma. that will straighten everything out...

First off, isn't God and Satan/Lucifer a massive line of universal good & evil? So, technically, if there is no universal concept of good or evil, then there cannot be a God or Satan, thus you have disproven your own statement in the exact same post. Rather hard thing to do.

Way to completely miss the point of the post. Of course I think there is a universal concept of evil. The point is by saying that natural evil is wrong implies that you believe in a universal good and evil. Because if you dont then good and evil are just human concepts and thus cannot be applied to natural disasters. If you say that good and evil are univseal concepts and can be applied to natural disasters, you are arguing in favour of God.

Universal morality supports God's existance. See Kant's work on that.

There you presupose that it is God causing the natural disasters, or that it is Gods reponsabilty to stop them

God originally designed us to live the way he set out (IE in his image). The reason he asks those things of us is that that is how we were ment to be.

1. Universal morality has been supported in a lot of screwy ways, many of which don't require a deity. You can post Kant's specific argument if you want, but I'm pretty sure there are justifications that get around it.
2. By creating the universe the way he did God causes natural disasters. God is therefore responsible to stop them as not doing so would be killing, thus breaking his own rules on the subject and being by his own definition unbenevolent and thus nonexistant.
3. And since God also designs himself in his own image and the way he is is the way he is meant to be he cannot kill, as doing so would counteract his own desires in regards to behavior.

watch the movie Dogma. that will straighten everything out...

Oh man, that movie rocks.

Way to completely miss the point of the post. Of course I think there is a universal concept of evil. The point is by saying that natural evil is wrong implies that you believe in a universal good and evil. Because if you dont then good and evil are just human concepts and thus cannot be applied to natural disasters. If you say that good and evil are univseal concepts and can be applied to natural disasters, you are arguing in favour of God.

Or you are arguing that if there was a God it could not cause natural disasters. In fact, that's what the argument is for, and you're not negating that, so the argument isn't invalidated at all.

It doesn't work to prove a god exists either. :rolleyes:

The idea is more that the act of causing natural disasters is evil. Like if some crazy dictator put a bomb on the ocean floor and caused a massive tsunami killing millions of his enemies, that would be evil. Same if a supernatural being did it.

Does this mean that people who cut down rainforests are evil?

(I'm not fighting your logic at all, I'm just asking)

Does this mean that people who cut down rainforests are evil?

(I'm not fighting your logic at all, I'm just asking)

So your comparing a natural disastor created by god that kills people to a group of villagers cutting down some rainforest to make room for crops or even a logging corporation?

It goes like this, if God exists, he can basically do whatever the Hell he wants. You certainly aren't going to convince him to play by rules other then those he accepts, so you might as well scurry and beg at his feet.
If God doesn't exist, who gives a flying fuck about whether the great boogey man in the sky is moral or not?

1. Universal morality has been supported in a lot of screwy ways, many of which don't require a deity. You can post Kant's specific argument if you want, but I'm pretty sure there are justifications that get around it.

Perfect univesral morals exist
Perfect universal morals require a perfect author
The only perfect author is God
Therefore God exists

Is basicly Kants arguement, but there is far more to it than that


2. By creating the universe the way he did God causes natural disasters. God is therefore responsible to stop them as not doing so would be killing, thus breaking his own rules on the subject and being by his own definition unbenevolent and thus nonexistant.

God did create the universe, and created it perfectly. We however are the ones who screwed it up


3. And since God also designs himself in his own image and the way he is is the way he is meant to be he cannot kill, as doing so would counteract his own desires in regards to behavior.

Desires for humans, however the wages of sin are death. That puts a very diffrent angle on your point

Perfect univesral morals exist
Perfect universal morals require a perfect author
The only perfect author is God
Therefore God exists

Is basicly Kants arguement, but there is far more to it than that

Yea good luck proving the first statement in that arguement. :rolleyes:

Thats like me saying

No universal morals exist.
The version of judao-christian god is supposed to be perfectly good.
Because no universal morals exist there is no perfect good.
Therefore the judao-christian god does not exist.

I've just disproven god.:rolleyes:

God did create the universe, and created it perfectly. We however are the ones who screwed it up
True 'dat. I fucking told Adam and Eve not put a black hole in the center of our galaxy that is slowly consuming the whole thing. Did they listen? No, they jsut threw that ultra dense stuff all over the place with no regard for the consequences.

Yea good luck proving the first statement in that arguement. :rolleyes:

Thats like me saying

No universal morals exist.
The version of judao-christian god is supposed to be perfectly good.
Because no universal morals exist there is no perfect good.
Therefore the judao-christian god does not exist.

I've just disproven god.:rolleyes:

I said its an arguement for God. You then have to prove each stage of the arguement

The point I am raising here, is that if you say that God should stop natural evil, then you are supporting Kants first postion because you imply that evil is a concept that goes beyond humans and should apply to nature as well. If good and evil are just human concepts then why should nature abide by them

I said its an arguement for God. You then have to prove each stage of the arguement.
1. Just because you say its an arguement for god doesn't make it so. I say the sky is red and that magical pixie faries are responsible for the bombings in Iraq. That doesn't make it so.
2. Show me Kant's proof for the first stage.

The point I am raising here, is that if you say that God should stop natural evil, then you are supporting Kants first postion because you imply that evil is a concept that goes beyond humans and should apply to nature as well. If good and evil are just human concepts then why should nature abide by them
Wrong the arguement goes god should stop natural evil because god is a perfectly good being and if thats true he shouldn't kill people. The whole arguement of natural evil disproving god is an attack on the Religious assumption that god is perfectly good.

Wrong the arguement goes god should stop natural evil because god is a perfectly good being and if thats true he shouldn't kill people. The whole arguement of natural evil disproving god is an attack on the Religious assumption that god is perfectly good.

But that assumes that natural evil is evil. Which assumes that there is a universal evil and a univesal good. And if that universal good doesnt come from God then where does it come from

Also it could be argued that what we percieve as bad isnt bad to God. IE Death for example is the wage of sin. Hence God has the right to kill anyone at any time as we are all sinners. Also since death isnt the end of this life, then God can cause people to die without moral consequence to himself, as he is not completely destroying them. However because death is ultimate to us at this level, we are completely destorying people which is why its immoral for us to do it. And since God is the only one allowd to judge sin (as sin is defined as rebellion against God), only he has the right to enforce the wages of sin.

I always find Augustine to help in these quandaries of evil and good, as he struggled with the same thing for years.

According to Augustine's view, God did not create evil. If God created evil, He would not be all-good, and therefore is not God. As it is, God creates only good. In His own likeness, he created Mankind with free will, that they may choose to obey God or disobey. When they choose to disobey, they twist goodness into something that is ungood, i.e. evil. All evil in the world is a result of original sin and the corruption of good. Therefore, God is good and creates only good. It is God's creation that has been given free will that twists good things into evil ones.

That's Augustine's thoughts, anyways.

So I guess for Augustine, there's no such thing as "natural evil." Things are naturally good and inherently move toward a good purpose. Free will and original sin unnaturally corrupt the good into bad. That's why even Lucifer isn't pure evil. Pure evil would be the opposite of pure good, and God is the Perfect Good. A Perfect Evil would be equal but opposite to God. Because Lucifer is a creation, he is not as powerful as God, he is simply a twisted creation.

1. Just because you say its an arguement for god doesn't make it so. I say the sky is red and that magical pixie faries are responsible for the bombings in Iraq. That doesn't make it so.

I didnt say it was so because of that proof. It is a model, a hypothesis.


2. Show me Kant's proof for the first stage.


Far to complex to go into detail on.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/
Should help

Perfect univesral morals exist
Perfect universal morals require a perfect author
The only perfect author is God
Therefore God exists

Is basicly Kants arguement, but there is far more to it than that



God did create the universe, and created it perfectly. We however are the ones who screwed it up



Desires for humans, however the wages of sin are death. That puts a very diffrent angle on your point

Kant's argument falls easily: nothing requires an author. Perfect morals could easily simply exist. Anyway its beside the point.

Just basic summation (and what really should have been your original point): People deserve everything they get. Ok, that brings it down to why do people do the stupid stuff in the first place, to which you will argue free will. And there the argument dies. It's just the same argument that's always used, just in slightly different clothing.

Just basic summation (and what really should have been your original point): People deserve everything they get.
Hate to sound like a 2nd grader, but why? Why should anyone deserve anything, good or bad?

I didnt say it was so because of that proof. It is a model, a hypothesis.
Then why are you making statements as if your hypothesis is a fact?



Far to complex to go into detail on.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/
Should help
This explains the wording and logic of the arguements but does not offer any proof of an absolute moral existing.

Hate to sound like a 2nd grader, but why? Why should anyone deserve anything, good or bad?

That's the other part he has to prove, but he can always just say God sez you deserve it, get over it. That's the problem with these kinds of religious arguments.

And by the way, for the people talking about the Kant proof: what the OP is trying to prove is that if there is a universal morality, then God exists, which would tie in with his original point that people saying natural disasters are evil are supporting universal morality. The problem is with the original point, not the Kant assumption.

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html

Wow! I'm impressed. You can't even attack your own strawman effectively. :eek:

I would recommend reading Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro", in which can be found the eponymous Euthyphro Dilemma.

Basically, Plato asks "Is that which is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is that which is pious pious because it is loved by the gods?"

In other words, he can be thought of as asking whether moral values exist because they're instituted by some deity, or whether they exist independently (he's getting at the Forms, but that's another matter entirely).

Essentially, he concludes that if moral values exist because they are instituted by a deity, being moral becomes meaningless, since one is being moral to please that deity, not for the sake of being moral. If, on the other hand, moral values have independent existence, it is possible to be moral without any reference to the divine whatsoever.

Plato doesn't really talk about the possibility of there not being definitive moral values, but that's another possibility.

1. Universal morality has been supported in a lot of screwy ways, many of which don't require a deity. You can post Kant's specific argument if you want, but I'm pretty sure there are justifications that get around it.
2. By creating the universe the way he did God causes natural disasters. God is therefore responsible to stop them as not doing so would be killing, thus breaking his own rules on the subject and being by his own definition unbenevolent and thus nonexistant.
3. And since God also designs himself in his own image and the way he is is the way he is meant to be he cannot kill, as doing so would counteract his own desires in regards to behavior.
You make a lot of assumptions that are slanted and not by any means given.
The biggest is "and being by his own definitin unbenevolent and thus nonexistant."
This assumes that if God is not omnibenevolent he can't exist. God isn't omnibenevolent. He is infact a vengeful and wrathful God.
You said God designs himself. Did you design yourself? No, God is and was and always will be. He wasn't "designed" at all.
Breaking his own rules? I assume you mean the 10 commandments? Thou shall not murder? Natural disasters do not murder.

*snip*
Breaking his own rules? I assume you mean the 10 commandments? Thou shall not murder? Natural disasters do not murder.

Just as guns do not murder?

If I fire a gun at someone, I kill them.

If god starts a tsunami (or a great flood), he kills people.

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html
Erm... this argument seems to have done the exact opposite of what it intended. Observe:

1) Natural evil exists (1st proposition)
2) Therefore evil is a universal concept (argument used above)
3) Therefore God exists (argument used above)
4) God does not choose for evil to happen (2nd proposition)
5) Natural evil does not exist (from 3 and 4, using an argument used above)

This contradiction implies we must reject one of the propositions, or one of the arguments. So either:

1) The original argument quoted above is flawed
2) My argument derived from it is flawed, so either:
a) Natural evil does not exist
b) God chooses for evil to happen

2a implies morality is a human construct (according to the original quoted argument), so the absolute morality suggested by Christianity cannot exist - if you object to thsi statement you must therefore reject the original argument. So you have to choices:

1) The original quoted argument is flawed
2) God chooses for evil to happen

Just as guns do not murder?

A gun has (as of yet*) never murdered anyone. People have used guns to murder, but to murder requires premeditated non-legal intent, which in turn requires thought.

If I fire a gun at someone, I kill them.

Not necessarily - even a great shooter can miss, and even assuming you hit you don"t necessarily kill.

If god starts a tsunami (or a great flood), he kills people.

Only if that was the intent. Unintended deaths are negligent manslaughter. That would make for a good book, though - something along the lines oof Towing Jehovah. ;)



* If it is eventually possible to endow a firearm with true AI, then we can talk about guns commiting murder.

A gun has (as of yet*) never murdered anyone. People have used guns to murder, but to murder requires premeditated non-legal intent, which in turn requires thought.



Not necessarily - even a great shooter can miss, and even assuming you hit you don"t necessarily kill.



Only if that was the intent. Unintended deaths are negligent manslaughter. That would make for a good book, though - something along the lines oof Towing Jehovah. ;)



* If it is eventually possible to endow a firearm with true AI, then we can talk about guns commiting murder.


Yeah, but you miss my point completely. The poster I was replying to more or less stated that natural disaster "do not murder", thus god does not murder. I just used the "guns do not kill people, people kill people" analogy on his statement. If god triggers a volcanoe near a big city and this results in people dying, then god has killed those people.

1.Perfect univesral morals exist
2.Perfect universal morals require a perfect author
3.The only perfect author is God
4.Therefore God exists

Is basicly Kants arguement, but there is far more to it than that

As I said the last time you posted this:
1. Outright False assumption and is undefined.
2. False/suspect assumption
3. False/suspect Assumption
4. A conclusion based on one outright false assumption that is undefined and two other false/suspect assumptions.

There may be more to it, but the 'more' is largely gloss to make the assumptions less transparant and to distract the reader away from the assumptions being made so the validity of the assumptions is not questioned.

I saw somewhere that if you can convince someone to make just one false assumption you can prove anything to them. Hell - I can make a proof of good from just one false assumption - look:

1. God Exists.
2. Therefore God Exists

Remember "Assume" makes an Ass out of U and Me.

Personally my favourite proof of God, and one of the more commonly used ones through history is:

Proof through intimidation.
1. See this bonfire.
2. Therefore God exists.

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html


Your argument is basically invalidated by the fact you seem to be under the impression that 'natural evil' is a sensible concept, shared by many persons.

No-one would take that position unless they believed in supernatural concepts like god - mudslides, hurricanes and the like are natural/physical phenomena that are only termed disasters or tragedies because they affect peoples' lives.

Your argument is basically invalidated by the fact you seem to be under the impression that 'natural evil' is a sensible concept, shared by many persons.

No-one would take that position unless they believed in supernatural concepts like god - mudslides, hurricanes and the like are natural/physical phenomena that are only termed disasters or tragedies because they affect peoples' lives.
If there really was a God, humans probably wouldn't factor in His grand scheme at all. He's too big and shiny to concern Himself with such puny mortals. Natural evil is just collateral damage.
Incidentally Katrina was George's own damn fault, employing a lawyer as head of FEMA was the worst decision he ever made.

1. Universal morality has been supported in a lot of screwy ways, many of which don't require a deity. You can post Kant's specific argument if you want, but I'm pretty sure there are justifications that get around it.
2. By creating the universe the way he did God causes natural disasters. God is therefore responsible to stop them as not doing so would be killing, thus breaking his own rules on the subject and being by his own definition unbenevolent and thus nonexistant.
3. And since God also designs himself in his own image and the way he is is the way he is meant to be he cannot kill, as doing so would counteract his own desires in regards to behavior.
Assuming God binds himself to his own rules. Your 3rd statement argues against this rather effectively, yet "in his own image" is highly symbolic and very vague a term. It might even be a result of Ecclesiastic manipulation of the Bible. In any case, if God were to act like a Sovereign above his own rules, he would be free to break them as he pleases.

I do not subscribe to the idea of a deity being of a human-like manifestation. If anything, a deity in my view is an upper power of indeterminate form or nature, unlikely to possess such features as gender and so on. One could say I am agnostic with Christian tendencies, as in I could believe that Jesus came to Earth and preacher his concepts of universal love and respect. Regarding the deity called God, however, I am not partial to Biblical interpretation. The idea of a deity existing is hardly absurd, yet I will not be so presumptuous as to believe we know anything of this deity's nature.

This entire thread is going to boil down to the same old arguments everyone had heard so many times before. Here’s how it goes:

“God is infallible!”
“No. If he were X wouldn’t have happened!”
“X doesn’t matter because God is infallible so he must have meant it to happen!”

There. Nothing accomplished. Let’s all shut up now, shall we?

All arguments are cyclical in nature. That doesn't mean we should avoid entering debate.

People will often say "If theres a God, why does he allow X natural disaster to happen" or "Doesn't natural evil disprove God?". But that arguement doesnt work. The reason being is that if you say that natural evil should be prevented or should not happen, your immidately making the leep that evil and good are universal concepts. If they are human concepts, and there is no such thing as a universal good or evil, then why should the universe or natural disasters respond to it. Morality is then just a human concept, not something that nature need nessecarly respond to. If you say that there is such a thing as natural evil, then you are supporting evil as a universal trait. The idea that evil and good are universal traits is suporting of the existance of God. Therefore you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God really.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html
People are not projecting good or evil onto the desaster itself
Rather the being that alows said things to happen

If I allow with full knoledge my daughter to get raped I am a bad and neglegent parent even though I did not perpretrate the act

I dont feel any being that alows preventable pain to happen to his children deserves worship

God did create the universe, and created it perfectly. We however are the ones who screwed it up

Did God not create us too ? And would him being omniscient mean he *knew* we would screw up - meaning he still is responsible ?

EDIT: rejoice - the circle has been traversed once ;)

Omniscience is a pretty compelling argument that many theologians cannot support nor defend their faith against criticisms forwarded against the idea. Sort of an inherent weakness within Christianity.

Your argument is basically invalidated by the fact you seem to be under the impression that 'natural evil' is a sensible concept, shared by many persons.

No-one would take that position unless they believed in supernatural concepts like god - mudslides, hurricanes and the like are natural/physical phenomena that are only termed disasters or tragedies because they affect peoples' lives.

People generally agree that the death and devistation caused by natural disasters is a natural evil

Did God not create us too ? And would him being omniscient mean he *knew* we would screw up - meaning he still is responsible ?

EDIT: rejoice - the circle has been traversed once ;)

No. He isnt. He created us with free will. The reason being that he wanted us to love him. This is why a robot cannot love. It has no free will. God gave humans free will, the ability to obey or disobey him. He is not responable if we choose to disobey him. He knew what we would do but that doesnt lessen the fact that we do it.

People are not projecting good or evil onto the desaster itself
Rather the being that alows said things to happen

If I allow with full knoledge my daughter to get raped I am a bad and neglegent parent even though I did not perpretrate the act

I dont feel any being that alows preventable pain to happen to his children deserves worship

People say "How could God allow such an evil thing to happen" thereby implying that the disasters consequences are univerally evil. If evil is however a reletive concept created by humans, then why should the natural world be considered evil. If however evil is a universal concept than that proves God. So you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God.

People say "How could God allow such an evil thing to happen" thereby implying that the disasters consequences are univerally evil. If evil is however a reletive concept created by humans, then why should the natural world be considered evil. If however evil is a universal concept than that proves God. So you cant use natural evil as an arguement against God.

Apologies if this cropped up earlier in the thread - it's a bit long for me to read every post, sorry! - but what was the name of the Russian (I believe...) thinker who wrote that he couldn't believe in any loving god that would let an innocent suffer? From the 19th C, maybe. His example involved the death of young children to disease or natural disaster, I think.

A disease pathogen, or a flood/fire/earthquake is in of itself, a neutral agent/event, without good or evil inherent to it. But the direct consequences of it might kill (as my half-remembered example above suggests) wholly innocent people. What sort of loving, omnipotent god lets these consequences happen? If he has the power to help and does not, is he good, and if he lacks the power, is he god?

The classic answer to this is that god's effectively doing the dead kid a favour, taking them out of this vale of tears early, before it spoils them. Thoughts, opinions, other answers?

No. He isnt. He created us with free will. The reason being that he wanted us to love him. This is why a robot cannot love. It has no free will. God gave humans free will, the ability to obey or disobey him. He is not responable if we choose to disobey him. He knew what we would do but that doesnt lessen the fact that we do it.

Just pointing out the obvious
a Humans that believe in Deities always assign them human traits and
sentiments.

b Your statement that God wanted us to love Him portrays a God with the
Human trait of needing social acceptance and approbation.

c Original statement of God not stopping natural (nature) evil as proof that
He doesn' exist is in fact proof that you believe in God, since He could be
the only possible construct for universal good and evil is logical only if you
accept the view that there is indeed a Deity. (paraphrasing here)

d Creation of AI does not make you responsible for their actions and
decisions if you are not omniscient. If you assign omniscience, you have
negated the excuse for responsibility.

Elgesh']Apologies if this cropped up earlier in the thread - it's a bit long for me to read every post, sorry! - but what was the name of the Russian (I believe...) thinker who wrote that he couldn't believe in any loving god that would let an innocent suffer? From the 19th C, maybe. His example involved the death of young children to disease or natural disaster, I think.

A disease pathogen, or a flood/fire/earthquake is in of itself, a neutral agent/event, without good or evil inherent to it. But the direct consequences of it might kill (as my half-remembered example above suggests) wholly innocent people. What sort of loving, omnipotent god lets these consequences happen? If he has the power to help and does not, is he good, and if he lacks the power, is he god?

The classic answer to this is that god's effectively doing the dead kid a favour, taking them out of this vale of tears early, before it spoils them. Thoughts, opinions, other answers?


In response to the last statement made concerning removal being merciful as a potential argument by some. This would make the abortion debate illogical for the person who believes they are better off dead.

As for evil/good, the movie and book "Sphere" portray my own view of both classic Deities and Alien Intelligence. They are neither moral nor immoral. Evil and good are the intellectual properties of an existing society. They are used to control the social order and assist in both propagation and annihilation of the main and competing societies.

People generally agree that the death and devistation caused by natural disasters is a natural evil

No, they don't. And that's why the OP is a strawman, making your argument meaningless.

In response to the last statement made concerning removal being merciful as a potential argument by some. - "The classic answer to this is that god's effectively doing the dead kid a favour, taking them out of this vale of tears early, before it spoils them. Thoughts, opinions, other answers?" This would make the abortion debate illogical for the person who believes they are better off dead.


Excellent, I didn't think of that - cheers, I'll have to remember that one! :)