Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

This was the title of a program on BBC 2 today.

An age old discussion is of course that if God (Gods,Goddess) is all powerful and loving, why does he allow such things to happen?

Several in the program talked about these things being a test for your faith, or a way to improve your character because you need important choices in your life. (Apperently this would apply to survivors, whether to help each other or fight over food.)

Some said life was a gift however long or short, and we should be happy for what we get.

So, does things like the earhquake prove that there is no God and if not, why are these things allowed to happen?

Are the Gods (if they exist) really interested in us on a personal basis?

the trouble with questions like these are the convenient-outs. if you were to ask a devout religionist why the earthquake happened, the response would be "because the lord works in mysterious ways". or, like you mentioned, "it's a test of faith".

i must admit that, in terms of god, i am a bit biased. i feel that the bible (the only true "evidence" of any god) could have been written by a human being, and that there is absolutely nothing that proves otherwise.

haiti is just one example. did 9/11 happen because there isn't a god? what about pearl harbor? the holocaust? which brings up another question: if there IS a god, which one is the real one? the tragedy in haiti might prove that haiti's god is false, but mohammed is true. 9/11 might prove that mohammed is false, but the christian god is true.

so frankly, i don't believe that haiti proves anything about god. it's either something that happened naturally (supporting the theory of evolution), or it's something that god wanted to happen (but we're not sure which god).

Danny Glover sez it was the fault of the U.S. because they didn't jump into the hysterics at the global warming cluster fuck in Denmark a few weeks ago. And ya gotta believe Danny!

I dont think it has any bearing whatsoever on the existence or lack there-of, but then again, I am a bit of a trancedental deist of sorts.

Any of these natural events, whether earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes or anything else, can neither prove or disprove the existence of anything other than themselves. Earthquakes exist. No question about it. Hurricanes happen. End of story. Did God send them? No reason to think so. If God wants to punish someone, all he has to do is induce a heart attack. Every natural disaster has a natural explanation.

On the other hand, it cannot prove that God does not exist. Nothing can prove that, at least not until we have gained all the possible knowledge in the universe. However, it does tend to indicate, at least to me, that this God doesn't give a rat's ass about people.

But maybe that's the Christian God. What about Allah? Does he care about people? Well,Indonesia is primarily Muslim, isn't it? That tsunami five years ago seemed to do a number on them. So I guess Allah doesn't care, either.

Maybe Allah and God are fighting one another! That would explain it. God smites Indonesia, so Allah stomps on Haiti. And good old Yahweh keeps sending those pillars of smoke (tornadoes) through the American Midwest, just for shits and giggles.

No, I'm afraid that all we can learn from Haiti is that, when you have shoddy building construction and an earthquake, buildings fall down. And they tend to fall down on people.

So let's contact that "Faith Comes By Hearing organization" and have them send another couple hundred of their solar-powered bibles. That's just what those starving, thirsty and homeless people need to get them through this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Maybe Allah and God are fighting one another ... and good old Yahweh keeps sending those pillars of smoke ... just for shits and giggles.

---

Brilliantly put! Doesn't get rid of the idea of God, but shows how death and destruction can be wreaked by his followers.

Oh, by the way, as I'm sure you all realise, God, Allah, and Yahweh are all same deity. So God's followers kill God's followers in God's name.

But natural disasters cannot possibly prove God's non-existence - for we know God to be a cruel God, if he exists, and if he doesn't why bother to prove it?

As one who would like to believe, I have no doubt that we are blessed that God chose to set our universe in motion. Wrote up some rules, and started the engine.

Given that, it would be hubris to presume that the diety who did so actually interferes on our behalf, postively or negatively.
And if he does... we might be the "Sims" of his universe... and every once in a while he clicks on the drop-down menu and creates a random event.

I know I sent Godzilla into my first Sim City once it was up and running. ;)

The only thing that the earthquake in Haiti proves is the theory of tectonics.

I wrote a paper on the problem of evil recently. I condensed the the argument into:

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

I argued that the problem of evil isn't wrong, but that the definition of God is in error.

Therefore, the definition of God needs to be redefined. Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not against evil.

I personally feel that it could be either, and that the chances of it being either are quite possibe (in my personal belief both are wrong). To remove the problem of evil I only need to redefine one of those, however. This is best at keeping our optimistic hopes! I believe (from analogy) that God is not omnipotent. The basis of my view is that nothing that I have seen or believe to ever exist in nature is all powerful. Therefore to assume that ANYTHING out there is omnipotent is a tad absurd. However, I believe that I am against evil, and therefore something in nature is against evil, so the possibility of God being against evil is more likely.

Then again, people would question whether our Creator is a "God" if she isn't omnipotent.
I'd like to say: Yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaAugusta

Therefore, the definition of God needs to be redefined. Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not against evil.

---

This is the big problem I have with religion. As culture changes, and our perceptions of good and bad are redefined, our definition of God needs to be changed as well.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Science does this all the time. New evidence changes our understanding of, for example, evolution. Our theories of evolution have to be modified to account for this new evidence. This is how knowledge advances.

But God is supposed to be unchanging, isn't He? After all, He is omniscient, knowing everything, past, present and future. There is nothing new to inspire change in Him, is there?

But if we can keep changing our definitions of God then we reduce Him to a mere hypothesis, subject to change upon learning new evidence. And since there IS no evidence, and no way to test our hypothesis, we can't even advance him to the status of theory! He must remain forever in limbo, untestable.

No the Earthquake shows that the Island Nation is located over a MAJOR Fault that theywere warned about 5 years ago that a Major Quake could and would happen, only so much a Country like Haiti can do to prepare for a Quake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theDerangedArchitect

i must admit that, in terms of god, i am a bit biased. i feel that the bible (the only true "evidence" of any god) could have been written by a human being, and that there is absolutely nothing that proves otherwise.

haiti is just one example. did 9/11 happen because there isn't a god? what about pearl harbor? the holocaust?

---

To my way of thinking this is all what humans do to humans, and nothing to do with God or Gods. But the way the earth works is perhaps different. Or not? God supposedly created both humans and earth.

Quote:

---

which brings up another question: if there IS a god, which one is the real one? the tragedy in haiti might prove that haiti's god is false, but mohammed is true. 9/11 might prove that mohammed is false, but the christian god is true.

---

It does not matter which one, at least not to me. Also Allah is supposed to be both omnipotent and merciful, so the question/dilemma remains the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I dont think it has any bearing whatsoever on the existence or lack there-of, but then again, I am a bit of a trancedental deist of sorts.

---

Do you mean a non-personal divinity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

But natural disasters cannot possibly prove God's non-existence - for we know God to be a cruel God, if he exists, and if he doesn't why bother to prove it?

---

How do we know that? Most problems are man-made. But maybe you mean that God was cruel to create something as cruel as humans??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Given that, it would be hubris to presume that the diety who did so actually interferes on our behalf, postively or negatively.
And if he does... we might be the "Sims" of his universe... and every once in a while he clicks on the drop-down menu and creates a random event.

I know I sent Godzilla into my first Sim City once it was up and running. ;)

---

Did you ever read Henleins "Job"? ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaAugusta

I wrote a paper on the problem of evil recently. I condensed the the argument into:

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

---

I think this calls for a definition of 'evil'.
Is an earthquake 'evil'?
Is a war evil, but we are the ones resposible for it?

Quote:

---

I believe (from analogy) that God is not omnipotent. The basis of my view is that nothing that I have seen or believe to ever exist in nature is all powerful. Therefore to assume that ANYTHING out there is omnipotent is a tad absurd.

Then again, people would question whether our Creator is a "God" if she isn't omnipotent.
I'd like to say: Yes!

---

I too can conceive of a non-omnipotent God. Whoever made that a definition? I think it hasn't always been. Maybe God, or the Gods, are just a lot more powerful than we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaAugusta

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

---

First: Your conclusion isn't logical. At best, from these statements, you can only conclude that God is either not omnipotent or God is not against evil. You cannot conclude his existance or non-existance from these statements.

Second: Your assumptions make presumptions about the nature of God that many such as myself would argue against. Why would an omipotent God be concerned with the human definitions of evil? You can't get humanity to agree on the definition of evil... therefore how can you make a statement regarding God's perspective of evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Do you mean a non-personal divinity?

---

Not exactly, yes and no I believe that this higher power that some of us refer to as the GOD can be all encompassing and that lesser entities can act as gods, but that all is inside all of us and part of every single living thing all at once.

I believe that it's conscienceness transends our own and ours it's. We are atomounous parts of the whole collective consciouness that is god, so as god has feel will so too do we. So as god is all powerful and defines good and evil for its self , so too do we. In this I think we are live individual cells of a great cosmic body.

The primaray difference too me is a matter of fractual mathematical scales of evolution and trancendental perspective.

I believe mankind is capable of developing noetic insights from time to time that led to a better understanding of things within the fractual patern of existance and that such individuals having no other recourse but "language" are limited in their ability to explain such things and that this is where religions and later philosophy and now science have come from.

Does god take a close personal intrest in me?

I hope so, but there is no way for me to know for certian until the final breath leaves my body.

I imagine from God's perspective it's much a kin to my own concerning the individual cells of my body.

I do not however believe that God visits worldy punnishments and or rewards upon us in the same way that some individual consciouness would such as a parent spanking a child; though I do know that the ancients once thought this way and felt very sure of the veritus of such.

I believe the Gnostics hold there to be a Supreme Deity, who is responsible for creation, and who is omnipotent and omni-everything-else. He is also sumpremely disinterested in what happens in the Universe and does not interfere when bad things happen. But equally, he does not cause them.

Then there is Jehovah who is a less than perfect deity, and because of his imperfections, is quite capable of sending in Godzilla, or a flood, or a momentous earthquake.

By the way, has San Francisco sat up and taken notice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

How do we know that? Most problems are man-made. But maybe you mean that God was cruel to create something as cruel as humans??

---

I suggest you read the story of Job to see just how cruel God can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Did you ever read Henleins "Job"? ;-)

---

No, I read virtually none of his post-carotid-surgery fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

No, I read virtually none of his post-carotid-surgery fiction.

---

I afraid you lost me completely here. Maybe I do not know him well enough, I only read two of his books, Job being one on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I suggest you read the story of Job to see just how cruel God can be.

---

I have - I do like its humor and attitude!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

No, I read virtually none of his post-carotid-surgery fiction.

---

Ah, I read it as a literary opinion - but it was literal ;-) I did not know he had had an operation, and that that changed his writing. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Not exactly, yes and no I believe that this higher power that some of us refer to as the GOD can be all encompassing and that lesser entities can act as gods, but that all is inside all of us and part of every single living thing all at once.

I believe that it's conscienceness transends our own and ours it's. We are atomounous parts of the whole collective consciouness that is god, so as god has feel will so too do we. So as god is all powerful and defines good and evil for its self , so too do we. In this I think we are live individual cells of a great cosmic body.

---

I can relate to this, it is very like many pagan faiths.

Quote:

---

The primaray difference too me is a matter of fractual mathematical scales of evolution and trancendental perspective.

I believe mankind is capable of developing noetic insights from time to time that led to a better understanding of things within the fractual patern of existance and that such individuals having no other recourse but "language" are limited in their ability to explain such things and that this is where religions and later philosophy and now science have come from.

---

Yes, language is really quite insufficient to describe these things. I once read a definition of 'mystery' as 'that which cannot be put into words'.

Surely philosophy and science are attempts to understand our world, just as religion partly must have been. Re another discussion, I never could see that relilgion (has to) bar scientific research. It can, but it doesn't have to.

Quote:

---

Does god take a close personal intrest in me?
I hope so, but there is no way for me to know for certian until the final breath leaves my body.
I imagine from God's perspective it's much a kin to my own concerning the individual cells of my body.[/COLOR][/I][/B]

---

Again, a very paganish thought which I can relate to. On a purely objective level, we are all made of the same material as each other and everything around us.

Quote:

---

I do not however believe that God visits worldy punnishments and or rewards upon us in the same way that some individual consciouness would such as a parent spanking a child; though I do know that the ancients once thought this way and felt very sure of the veritus of such.

---

Me neither! It does not seem to have kept people on the straight and narrow either, if that is a place to be.
But many have a need to feel that bad behaviour is punished somehow, as the human justice is so lacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I have - I do like its humor and attitude!

---

:) I think he probably meant the one in the Bible, not the one by Heinlein. Both depict an innocent mortal being screwed around by Them Upstairs, but in RAH's version it turns out that it's the Devil who is testing him - JHVH stopped bothering with such hands-on management long ago.

And he gets much gentler treatment than the biblical Job, who comes over like a total masochist - "Thank you for killing my family, Lord, may I have another?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I have - I do like its humor and attitude!

---

Heinlein's Job was humorous, I agree. The BIBLE's Job, not so much. And that is just one example of God's capriciousness and cruelty.

I like to see the book of Job as a metaphoric estament of Man's faith. The human capacity to loose everything and still have hope!

Why does God have to stop a natural disaster from occuring? Why is it that if he allows one to happen that all of a sudden he's hateful and doesn't give a shit about anybody? People who say that God allows things to happen so that people will build their faith is ridiculous; people who try to avoid the discussion altogether with, "We should be happy for every bit of life we get," is being disrespectful to the victims of the disaster. Put that person in the middle of Haiti right before the earthquake and see how grateful they would be. I don't believe posessing the ability to prevent a looming disaster dictates its use.

leo, you said, "Both depict an innocent mortal being screwed around by Them Upstairs, but in RAH's version it turns out that it's the Devil who is testing him," which implies that God was testing Job. In the Biblical account, it was the Devil who tested Job. God allowed him to, but God did not do it. According to the Bible, Satan had gone all through the earth and went to God mocking him, saying that he could make everyone in the world turn their backs on God...that the only reason anybody followed him was because he protected them from things...a hedgewall of sorts. So God said, "Well hey you should see my servant, Job. He would never turn his back on me, no matter what you do." So Satan asks permission to try, which God grants. God did not initiate any of Job's sufferings. He granted the permission, which a lot of people would say proves that he didnt' care about Job. The point of the story isn't so much about Job as it is about Christians in general: people who truly follow Christ will always follow Christ, regardless of the circumstances. This is very applicable to anyone who wonders whether someone is a true Christian. People who curse God when bad things happen are not true Christians. Not preventing a disaster is not the same thing as causing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

Why does God have to stop a natural disaster from occuring? Why is it that if he allows one to happen that all of a sudden he's hateful and doesn't give a shit about anybody? People who say that God allows things to happen so that people will build their faith is ridiculous; people who try to avoid the discussion altogether with, "We should be happy for every bit of life we get," is being disrespectful to the victims of the disaster. Put that person in the middle of Haiti right before the earthquake and see how grateful they would be. I don't believe posessing the ability to prevent a looming disaster dictates its use.

snip
The point of the story isn't so much about Job as it is about Christians in general: people who truly follow Christ will always follow Christ, regardless of the circumstances. This is very applicable to anyone who wonders whether someone is a true Christian. People who curse God when bad things happen are not true Christians. Not preventing a disaster is not the same thing as causing it.

---

I am not sure I can follow your argument. I read your text as saying God did not cause the disaster, but also did not prevent it, and why should he?
And further that to think that the reason God allows this to happen is a test, or proves that he is hateful, is ridiculous.

So what is the conclusion?? Given the ability to prevent, why does he allow it?

The folowing question is also not meant as anything other than a genuie interest in these matters: why should Christians love and follow Christ no matter what?

What does God want with Christians? What is the relationship, if I may put it this way, between Christ and Christians?

God gives, God takes, his name be praised. Why?

Sometimes I feel on the track on something hard to put into words - like the faith some people have can help them through anything, that whatever happens there is still a special kind of love there. Some pagan faiths are like that too.

Other times I think that many Chrisitian religions seem to think of human beings as worthless things who can only pray that God will take pity on them so they won't go to hell, and who'll have to take anything God throws at them like dogs with a bad Master. That is Job's story for me.

Would you like to say more on this matter, to sort out these thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

No, I read virtually none of his post-carotid-surgery fiction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I afraid you lost me completely here. Maybe I do not know him well enough, I only read two of his books, Job being one on them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Ah, I read it as a literary opinion - but it was literal ;-) I did not know he had had an operation, and that that changed his writing. Interesting.

---

Ah. Yes. I was indeed being literal. I enjoyed his earlier work far more than that which he produced afterwards. In part, because, for good or ill, I like my protagonists to be clearly male or female. Gender bending and bi-curious heroes and heroines... I don't find them engaging my imagination so I lose interest in their struggle and the book becomes tedious.

I'm not phobic about it mind you... just not curious enough to continue suspending my disbelief (as one must often do with science-fiction.)

Now... back to the topic of God. :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

Why does God have to stop a natural disaster from occuring? Why is it that if he allows one to happen that all of a sudden he's hateful and doesn't give a shit about anybody?

---

If I were walking down the street and saw someone attacking another person, and did nothing to stop it, or even stood by and watched, I would be as guilty of a crime as the perpetrator, wouldn't I?

Or if I saw a man walking onto a plane with a bomb strapped to his chest, wouldn't I be guilty of killing innocent people if I failed to notify the authorities?

I look upon the idea of God in this same way. He COULD prevent the disaster. He doesn't, which implicates him in the suffering of the victims. Even if we assume that there is a reason for the disaster itself, God COULD protect the people, preventing unnecessary death and injury and all the horrors that the victims must suffer.

The fact that God does not intervene in these disasters leads me to two possible conclusions:
1 - Like a scientist testing bacterial colonies for resistance to antibiotics, God simply observes the results of these disasters, seeing which people survive and which do not. The suffering of those who survive in a damaged condition is immaterial to him. The survivors must live with the consequences.

2 - There is no God. Natural disasters happen, and people die and are injured. The survivors must live with the consequences.

In both cases the results are the same. Naturally, my opinion is that the second case is true, but even if I'm wrong and the first case is closer to the truth, this is certainly not the God of Abraham and Mohammad, and is most definitely not a being worthy of any kind of worship or adoration.

Now, one can probably come up with many other possible explanations for the apparent absence of any intervention by God, but they all seem to end the same way: The survivors must live with the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I am not sure I can follow your argument. I read your text as saying God did not cause the disaster, but also did not prevent it, and why should he?
And further that to think that the reason God allows this to happen is a test, or proves that he is hateful, is ridiculous.

---

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

So what is the conclusion?? Given the ability to prevent, why does he allow it?

---

This is a question for which I doubt anyone has an answer. Everyone has theories, but nobody knows why. If it was obvious, this thread wouldn't exist. I don't know why things are allowed to happen any more than anybody else does. But I don't believe that just because they do happen and because suffering exists that God is misanthropic. And I don't believe that such happenings mean that if God exists, he set the universe in motion and then observes without interfering. I don't understand why there must only be two options. If we can all admit that we don't know, then why can't we admit that there may be more than these conclusions? Perhaps a conclusion exists which we have not thought of that is correct. Humans are extremely intelligent, but is it really out of the question to consider that maybe we just can't figure this one out? And if we can't, does that mean that God is hateful, uninvolved, or nonexistant? I just can't help but think that we tend to be very limited in our thinking and wonder if there are other options that we have not considered or cannot comprehend...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

The folowing question is also not meant as anything other than a genuie interest in these matters: why should Christians love and follow Christ no matter what?

---

Well, in my response I only mentioned Christians, but after submitting it I started thinking that really it applies to everyone. Anytime we have a belief or an action that we really believe in, we will stand by that prinicple no matter what. So Christians should love and follow Christ no matter what only if they truly believe they are believing the right thing. If they aren't convinced that Christ is the true King, then what's the point except being fake? Maybe a show for some shallow societal gains in some way...I don't know. Why should people who support human rights follow that end no matter what? Because that's what they believe in, and if they didn't do what they felt was the right thing to do then they are not being true to themselves, and in my opinion life's fulfillment comes from being true to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

What does God want with Christians? What is the relationship, if I may put it this way, between Christ and Christians?

---

The answer to the question about what God wants is tricky, because it opens up so many debates. I believe that God wants respect, love, honor...This begs the question, "How can you respect/love/honor God when he allows natural disasters? When good people suffer in the world? When he remains intangible?" I view the relationship between Christ and Christians just like I view the relationship between a Dom and a sub. Love must be present on both sides, along with trust...the Bible states that the relationship is a familial one. Many times Christians are called "sons of God". In my opinion, if you do not feel you can trust that God exists or in the goodness of God, why would you waste your time being a Christian? But if you do believe in God and can trust in his goodness, and if you decide to become a follower of Christ, then you should seek to honor him in all you do because you have placed your trust and loyalty in him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

God gives, God takes, his name be praised. Why?

---

Well this ties in with what I said a minute ago. If you don't believe in the ultimate goodness of God, then the 'God takes' part will be so difficult/hurtful that praising becomes completely out of the question. So I believe that line would only be applicable if you already believe in Christ...and by applicable I don't really mean 'the validity of the application' so much as 'the possibility of the application'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Sometimes I feel on the track on something hard to put into words - like the faith some people have can help them through anything, that whatever happens there is still a special kind of love there. Some pagan faiths are like that too.

Other times I think that many Chrisitian religions seem to think of human beings as worthless things who can only pray that God will take pity on them so they won't go to hell, and who'll have to take anything God throws at them like dogs with a bad Master. That is Job's story for me.

Would you like to say more on this matter, to sort out these thoughts?

---

I think that faith and love are the two most powerful forces in the universe: I'm sure some would disagree. And like you, I have moments where I feel like faith could literally move mountains (reference accidental). We remember stories of faith much longer than stories of despair about people who had no faith. Why is that? So that's why I think the way I do about faith. But faith is very tricky, because it is easily used a crutch...and how do you know when it is real in someone else?

Unfortunately, most Christians aren't real Christians. They enjoy bragging about how wonderful they are and how close to God they are (excuse me while I puke)...and they just LOVE telling you how to live YOUR life. I believe Christians who use scare tactics (or any other religion for that matter) to get people to believe so they can escape something undesirable is despicable and something that God does not appreciate. And I believe it's that very tactic that has made Christians seem so evil to others: self-righteous, self-centered, condeming, small-minded. What really pisses me off about Christians is that they don't even take the time to try and figure out why they believe things...I guess it's more convenient to just throw out a, "God works in mysterious ways" followed up with a, "I'll pray for you."

These people are a disgrace, and their relationship to God is nonexistant. As far as Hell, this may begin another debate. The theology of the Bible goes something like this: Fallen people go to Hell because they are not worthy of Heaven, which is perfect. (And again, this ties into the "If God allows it, he is guilty, whether directly or indirectly," argument) Jesus was sent to provide a blood sacrifice so that people COULD get into Heaven. The theology, then, purports that God doesn't send people to Hell; they go there automatically. Further, God went out of his way to make sure that they could get into Heaven, because he loves them.

Now I know the argument will probably be that if God is in complete control of eveything, why did he have to do anything other than just change the law of Hell (or however you want to say it) with a thought? Why the trouble of sending Jesus? And beyond that, if people still go to Hell, then how much does he love them anyway?

I have no answer for the first question. I spend a lot of time introspectively with apologetics but have not wrestled too much with this. I have no idea. It seems, though, that God, who is in complete control over everything, is now subject--bound, if you will--to laws that he created. Why is that? How can you be over all if you are bound by a law? I simply don't know.

For Jesus, perhaps to demonstrate love. And for the third question, how much did they love him might be a better way of putting it.

I am only showing different ways of looking at the issue. I hope nobody misunderstands me to think that I feel my ideas are superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

If I were walking down the street and saw someone attacking another person, and did nothing to stop it, or even stood by and watched, I would be as guilty of a crime as the perpetrator, wouldn't I?

I look upon the idea of God in this same way. He COULD prevent the disaster. He doesn't, which implicates him in the suffering of the victims. Even if we assume that there is a reason for the disaster itself, God COULD protect the people, preventing unnecessary death and injury and all the horrors that the victims must suffer.

The fact that God does not intervene in these disasters leads me to two possible conclusions:
1 - Like a scientist testing bacterial colonies for resistance to antibiotics, God simply observes the results of these disasters, seeing which people survive and which do not. The suffering of those who survive in a damaged condition is immaterial to him. The survivors must live with the consequences.

2 - There is no God. Natural disasters happen, and people die and are injured. The survivors must live with the consequences.

In both cases the results are the same. Naturally, my opinion is that the second case is true, but even if I'm wrong and the first case is closer to the truth, this is certainly not the God of Abraham and Mohammad, and is most definitely not a being worthy of any kind of worship or adoration.

Now, one can probably come up with many other possible explanations for the apparent absence of any intervention by God, but they all seem to end the same way: The survivors must live with the consequences.

---

I completely agree that God, having not prevented the earthquake when he could, implicates him in the suffering of the victims. And now the question should not only be what does this say about God, but also what does this say about suffering? As far as God is concerned, why are the only two options that he is uninvolved or hates people? As far as suffering is concerned, again who of us could really say for certainty that any answer is correct? But there are some things that we do know about suffering: suffering gets people's attention...when someone notices suffering they go help meet needs. When people suffer sometimes they learn things they otherwise might not learn. I am NOT saying that that these are the reasons why the earthquake happened. I am only saying that there are many things to consider. So if God, who could prevent himself from being implicated in the sufferings of these innocent people allow himself to be so implicated, the larger question is why? Is God an idiot? He just didn't consider what people would think if he didn't stop the earthquake? Does he want people to think of him as a hateful creator who doesn't care about the creatures he created? Is he just not there at all, and all these questions are a waste of time? I think all the questions we can come up with are worth considering.

You say in the end of your post that other options may exist but all end the same way, with the survivors bearing the pains of the event. Yes, of course that's right. And to that point we have no idea what those consequences will mean to each individual, although I think it's pretty safe to say that this will probably (hopefully!) be the most traumatic, painful (physically/mentally) event each will ever have to endure. We all have burdens, and I am NOT trying to minimize suffering; please don't misunderstand. I am saying that everyone in this world suffers a myriad of hurts throughout life for different reasons. Those who don't believe in any kind of God or supreme being is likely to believe that hurt is random and impersonal. Some people believe that all hardships are a result of sin, and there are probably dozens of theories inbetween the two extremes. The people will have to live with what happened forever; for some it might ruin their life: perhaps they will never get over what happened. For some it might renew their faith in people, finding that people are much more compassionate than once thought. For some it might be the beginning of a new life: I've heard on the news that Obama is thinking about passing laws that would allow more Haitians (hope I spelled that right) to live in America. The point is that we have no idea what the actual implications of the consequences suffered by the people mean. We can only guess. And while nobody here would argue that the tragedy was anything less of horrendous, we simply cannot say that nothing good can come from it. I am not using that statement to say, "See, so God was good to not prevent the earthquake...some Haitians can live in America now." That is not what I believe at all.

Like I said, I have no answer as to why God wouldn't interfere. I just don't believe that it means he doesn't care, that he isn't involved, or that he isn't there.

Other times I think that many Chrisitian religions seem to think of human beings as worthless things who can only pray that God will take pity on them so they won't go to hell, and who'll have to take anything God throws at them like dogs with a bad Master. That is Job's story for me.

Would you like to say more on this matter, to sort out these thoughts?
-thir

Christians who believe that they should just take whatever is throws at them are no different than other people..I mean, everyone has bad things thrown at them all the time. We just deal the best we can, hopefully learn something, and move on. I understand you're specifically talking about Job, wondering why he was so happy...well, he wasn't. My thoughts on Christians who look at the religion as being slave to a bad Master are ignorant and in my opinion not true Christians, because (as I mentioned earlier) what is the point of being a Christian (further, how CAN you be a Christian) if you do not believe in the goodness of God? I would NEVER agree to be a slave to a master I felt was evil or didn't care about me. So my response would be anyone who says their master is a bad master does not follow that master. Either they follow with disdain or do not follow at all because they do not have respect for him. So any religious person that shows disdain for a master they claim to serve is a false believer, and I wouldn't waste my time listening to anything he/she had to say.

(sorry I got long-winded and forgot to address that last point)

the main reason i have opted out of religion is because of the this is the proof of God stuff and that is the same reason i opted out of atheism for the this is the proof of no god stuff. i have so many meaningful experiences and moments in my life that aren't exactly on my fun to have had happen list and they end up being on my thats how i know there is a God list. the essence of being human to me is to wonder and ponder and try to find for ones self is there or isn't there a God and what does that mean to me? rather than what do i think that means to you...sorry couldn't resist my own 2 cents being thrown in.

I stopped believing when the only answer I could get to my questions was, "You have to have faith." I found I had no faith, not without evidence, and I could find no evidence. The older I've gotten and the more I've learned, the less evidence I find for the existence of any kind of supernatural being, be it the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God or any other.

IF there is a god out there, it does not seem to have any meaningful interaction with us here on Earth, and in fact doesn't seem to have any interaction at all. Everything we learn about nature proceeds exactly as our science says it should if there were no gods. And no one, in all the history of humanity, has ever been able to present verifiable evidence of any such interaction. It's all anecdotes and interpretations.

If you want to show that God exists, just show some evidence, which can be tested and verified. Maybe all those who have died in Haiti were non-Christians? Or maybe they were all atheists? Or perhaps they were all Christians, taken from the scene so they wouldn't have to suffer the aftereffects? Could it be that God only killed all the greedy, evil, criminals?

But history shows us that the killings in these disasters, whether man-made or "acts of God", are quite homogeneous. Certainly the poor tend to die in greater numbers than the rich, but there are more poor people than rich, and they tend to live in riskier environments, so that's not really meaningful.

It's quite true that, IF there is a God, we can not understand his reasons for doing anything. He is so far above us that our meager minds cannot comprehend him. But that does not make him worthy of our worship and adoration, especially if his morality is so far removed from our own. We cannot know anything about him, cannot know anything about his plans for us, either now or after death. And if his plan for the universe is set, what makes us think he will alter it just because we ask?

So until we can see uncontrovertible evidence of such a god, or any god (and by that, I mean something akin to a burning bush in the middle of Times Square doing a live televised interview with Barbara Walters!) I'll have to continue with my unbelief.

Unless I get struck by lightning! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I stopped believing when the only answer I could get to my questions was, "You have to have faith." I found I had no faith, not without evidence, and I could find no evidence. The older I've gotten and the more I've learned, the less evidence I find for the existence of any kind of supernatural being, be it the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God or any other.

IF there is a god out there, it does not seem to have any meaningful interaction with us here on Earth, and in fact doesn't seem to have any interaction at all. Everything we learn about nature proceeds exactly as our science says it should if there were no gods. And no one, in all the history of humanity, has ever been able to present verifiable evidence of any such interaction. It's all anecdotes and interpretations.

If you want to show that God exists, just show some evidence, which can be tested and verified. Maybe all those who have died in Haiti were non-Christians? Or maybe they were all atheists? Or perhaps they were all Christians, taken from the scene so they wouldn't have to suffer the aftereffects? Could it be that God only killed all the greedy, evil, criminals?

But history shows us that the killings in these disasters, whether man-made or "acts of God", are quite homogeneous. Certainly the poor tend to die in greater numbers than the rich, but there are more poor people than rich, and they tend to live in riskier environments, so that's not really meaningful.

It's quite true that, IF there is a God, we can not understand his reasons for doing anything. He is so far above us that our meager minds cannot comprehend him. But that does not make him worthy of our worship and adoration, especially if his morality is so far removed from our own. We cannot know anything about him, cannot know anything about his plans for us, either now or after death. And if his plan for the universe is set, what makes us think he will alter it just because we ask?

So until we can see uncontrovertible evidence of such a god, or any god (and by that, I mean something akin to a burning bush in the middle of Times Square doing a live televised interview with Barbara Walters!) I'll have to continue with my unbelief.

Unless I get struck by lightning! :eek:

---

I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am just saying how I feel; I realize it isn't extremely popular. I saw a quote about faith once, "Faith is not believing in spite of evidence; faith is obeying in spite of consequences." To me, that means doing whatever I believe in, whether it's in God or in helping the homeless person downtown..I think more people should obey their conscience.. There is no empirical test I can give to prove God, and I don't care to try. You are entitled to your beliefs, and I don't want to interfere with that at all. There was a man once, who sought to disprove the existence of God and has said that in trying to disprove he actually ended up believing in God...seems like an interesting story, but I don't know a lot about it.

There will never be any fool-proof evidence either way; this argument will continue until the end of time. Until then we're all just wading around in our best guesses and (like you said) interpretations of the things we see and feel. I love listening to people who think differently than I do, though. It's amazing how unique we an all be.

for me and what i needed as far as evidence (btw i have no major world religious views at all) was not what anyone else needs for evidence. Maybe the same thing that got my fundamentalist mother out of bed in the morning would have had me put a bullet in my brain. The argument that God can't be proved is not an effective argument for the lack of God anymore than have faith is an effective argument for believing. During the 80's and all the God caused the aids epidemic crap got me to leave the church. i can say that i have absolute evidence of a God in my life that is what i need for me. Unfortunately in my eyes, people are always the problem. Why oh why would God cause an earthquake or Tsunami or a car jacking? Just because there is evil in the world and catastrophes, that means God causes them or doesn't mind them? i don't see how that means that at all.

Such events do not disprove God!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

This was the title of a program on BBC 2 today.

An age old discussion is of course that if God (Gods,Goddess) is all powerful and loving, why does he allow such things to happen?

Several in the program talked about these things being a test for your faith, or a way to improve your character because you need important choices in your life. (Apperently this would apply to survivors, whether to help each other or fight over food.)

Some said life was a gift however long or short, and we should be happy for what we get.

So, does things like the earhquake prove that there is no God and if not, why are these things allowed to happen?

Are the Gods (if they exist) really interested in us on a personal basis?

---