Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

[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?

[theDerangedArchitect]

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).

[SirStef]

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!

[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.

[Thorne]

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.

[MMI]

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?

[Ozme52]

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.

[TwistedTails]

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

[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 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!

[Thorne]

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.

[mkemse]

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

[thir]

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.

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.

[thir]

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?

[thir]

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??

[thir]

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"? ;-)

[thir]

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?

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.

[Ozme52]

-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.

[denuseri]

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.

[MMI]

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?

[Thorne]

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.

[Ozme52]

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

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

[thir]

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.

[thir]

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!

[thir]

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.

[thir]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[leo9]

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?"

[Thorne]

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.

[denuseri]

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!

[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.

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.

[thir]

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?