Why does god allow natural disasters...?

[evanovitch]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If someone claims God made us, then they must be able to account for and explain that which proves otherwise- such as HERVs in the human genome, which we share with apes.

Without such proof, their position must then either adapt and change to reconcile the new information, or become absurd.
</div></div>

so u argue that the proof is in the pudding so to speak...once given, den it would be easier for belief to follow?????

dat is the wat is implied by this line of reasoning...man being rational ongle wants and needs proof

following from dat we know dat is an open ended fallacy....me know mi practicallyh mixing metaphors r wateva here

cause HISTORY, shows dat man is neva satisfied in the 'real' world wen given proof asked for

case in point, people ( no attempt to mek dis racial ) who refuse to acknowledge dat one dem come from apes much less from Africa

so y ask for proof of the BIBLE wen u (universal you) wont believe the science of ur own wordly proving

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> God would have known Eve would succumb and get tricked due to her ignorance- remember she had no way to value death or know what it meant.
</div></div>

ahhhhh wich comes bak to the ?...who do u believe ?..the one who brung u r di one who mek <span style="font-style: italic">promise</span>...the proof was in di pudding...comes bak to the resting IN the WORD...comes bak to REMAIN in di WORD...cause Satan is restless...going bak an forth looking fi an opening....(dat i s weh di analogy of the serpent come from..think of the movements of a snake) ....lust of the eyes, ears etc

forward to the 40days....said offers n exposure to said openings fi lust...satan know Scripture cause him quote it both to Eve , aldoah wid a ? mark as to how she fi intepret it n him quote it to Jesus...


but Jesus show us wat is the way to ansa temptations...IT IS WRITTEN...aka REMAIN IN THE WORD...all comes bak to that ....in the beginning WAS THE WORD...anyway u look at it, that is the constant ...we r the ones who r not constant </div></div>
yes evan, but the actual point here is why allow Satan to rebel.

he is not suppose to have free will? what is he rebelling against then?

are you saying Satan is a free agent, or are you saying God set him against us to work evil according to God's own will, even against those innocent?

and we already know it can not be introduced that we are all born in some state of sin.

further I would point out that the Bible can not be the only source of revelation...that puts early christianity in a strange position, going back to what we were discussing.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
case in point, people ( no attempt to mek dis racial ) who refuse to acknowledge dat one dem come from apes much less from Africa

so y ask for proof of the BIBLE wen u (universal you) wont believe the science of ur own wordly proving </div></div>

perfect case in point- you recognize the only way to not accept the truth of this is to maintain an absurd position in the face of the knowledge of the facts of the matter.

so it is, with the logical problem of evil.

also, the fact is, that people do accept the facts of the matter- even if it might make them realize their prejudice, eventually. I'd say this is the general trend of the matter, and is why religions are losing members and feel like they are under &quot;attack.&quot;

sometimes people come to grips with this the hard way- like if a racist white man gets a heart transplant from a chinese man.

or if a creationist is accused of some heinous crime and his innocence is proven by DNA evidence, which we only know because of evolution being a fact.

as an aside, this reminds me a report I recently read, about a crew of N. Koreans who intercepted a S. Korean fishing vessel that crossed over the border. The N. Koreans could not believe that the S. Koreans had ball point pens. Apparently, this was something incredible. Then, they saw S. Korean television. Most of them were able to rationalize these events and explain them away.

But one of them realized that everything he had been taught about Kim Jong Il being like unto a God and S. Korea was a fabrication. That former world, now at risk because of new discovery, new truths, collapsed, and a new one was forced up, one which more accurately reflected reality.

All religions do this, too. Some just need to go a little faster.

[evanovitch]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> God would have known Eve would succumb and get tricked due to her ignorance- remember she had no way to value death or know what it meant.
</div></div>

ahhhhh wich comes bak to the ?...who do u believe ?..the one who brung u r di one who mek <span style="font-style: italic">promise</span>...the proof was in di pudding...comes bak to the resting IN the WORD...comes bak to REMAIN in di WORD...cause Satan is restless...going bak an forth looking fi an opening....(dat i s weh di analogy of the serpent come from..think of the movements of a snake) ....lust of the eyes, ears etc

forward to the 40days....said offers n exposure to said openings fi lust...satan know Scripture cause him quote it both to Eve , aldoah wid a ? mark as to how she fi intepret it n him quote it to Jesus...


but Jesus show us wat is the way to ansa temptations...IT IS WRITTEN...aka REMAIN IN THE WORD...all comes bak to that ....in the beginning WAS THE WORD...anyway u look at it, that is the constant ...we r the ones who r not constant </div></div>
yes evan, but the actual point here is why allow Satan to rebel.

he is not suppose to have free will? what is he rebelling against then?

are you saying Satan is a free agent, or are you saying God set him against us to work evil according to God's own will, even against those innocent?

and we already know it can not be introduced that we are all born in some state of sin.

further I would point out that the Bible can not be the only source of revelation...that puts early christianity in a strange position, going back to what we were discussing. </div></div>

God did not allow Satan to rebel..to allow in the sense u tawking wen it comes to the events in the Bible implies u precipitate the action....He knows us and wat we r liable to do but He in us is the constancy that should prevent us wanting to rebel...HE ONGLE IS GOD...HE ongle is perfect...He made a caretaker for his other creations, cause memba we were the last to come off the assembly line...GOD is not a tyrant...He is an angry GOD is not the in the sense of tyranny...anger at the weakness he knows we will give in to yes but not anger fi beat us into submission...y did the devil approach the woman n not the man? one was made of a portion of a original creation...wich is more fallible ...in our colloquial thinking an reasoning, where wud u find r seek out a probable n possible breach in a solid wall...

God did not set Satan free...he wanted to be free...like A n E he wanted wat he coulden have...tink pon dat...he chose like dem to mek a run fi di border....wat he had was not enuff....greed does dat dont...from di stawt of time

an misery loves company plus satan wanted to be godlike hence his fall...in his continued quest to be a god he seeks subjects...an again therein is a differnce bet him n GOD...satan wan fi subjugate wile God offers ...word meaning an connotation is soooo important dont...Satan wants subjects, God offers companionship...Sonship

whew, u a release nuff from mi an mi a try let out nuff so mi hope mi not cutting it short in the attempt to get it all out?..mek mi read whe juss come out...

[evanovitch]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
case in point, people ( no attempt to mek dis racial ) who refuse to acknowledge dat one dem come from apes much less from Africa

so y ask for proof of the BIBLE wen u (universal you) wont believe the science of ur own wordly proving </div></div>

perfect case in point- you recognize the only way to not accept the truth of this is to maintain an absurd position in the face of the knowledge of the facts of the matter.

so it is, with the logical problem of evil.

also, the fact is, that people do accept the facts of the matter- even if it might make them realize their prejudice, eventually. I'd say this is the general trend of the matter, and is why religions are losing members and feel like they are under &quot;attack.&quot;

sometimes people come to grips with this the hard way- like if a racist white man gets a heart transplant from a chinese man.

or if a creationist is accused of some heinous crime and his innocence is proven by DNA evidence, which we only know because of evolution being a fact.

as an aside, this reminds me a report I recently read, about a crew of N. Koreans who intercepted a S. Korean fishing vessel that crossed over the border. The N. Koreans could not believe that the S. Koreans had ball point pens. Apparently, this was something incredible. Then, they saw S. Korean television. Most of them were able to rationalize these events and explain them away.

But one of them realized that everything he had been taught about Kim Jong Il being like unto a God and S. Korea was a fabrication. That former world, now at risk because of new discovery, new truths, collapsed, and a new one was forced up, one which more accurately reflected reality.

All religions do this, too. Some just need to go a little faster. </div></div>

come now...u a really reach on the point of going from di sublime to di ridiculous wid dis now ...

[evanovitch]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

anyway missa Monk have to seh having taken di time to reason wid u, much respek...have to be big enuff fi admit to past recalcitrant attitude towards u...but in this moment it has been a good discussion....mi bak a hurt mi cause mi been at the desktop fi hours now ...mi a go switch rooms but is almoss midnite n mi no do mi reading fi di nite yet...

if u up to it we can continue pon a next but di I a go ketch a fresh in many a way

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
come now...u a really reach on the point of going from di sublime to di ridiculous wid dis now ... </div></div>

yeah man, I am being ridiculous to a point though.

and that is one of conditioning.

remember, and I know you see it, not even Jesus was comfortable. Yet he was the Son of God.

but there is a mythic journey, often sparked by the ascetic practice, that of the renunciate, which all who undertake the process of uniting must undergo.

and that is where the big miss in all of this is.

he must have meant something when he said the kingdom of heaven is as such as these. he must have meant something when he said, and allegorically taught, the kingdom is within.

the point here is that no follower of jesus can look around them in this world and be comfortable with what they see, and yet, belief of most comes from exactly that place, one of comfort.

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
God did not allow Satan to rebel..to allow in the sense u tawking wen it comes to the events in the Bible implies u precipitate the action....He knows us and wat we r liable to do but He in us is the constancy that should prevent us wanting to rebel...HE ONGLE IS GOD...HE ongle is perfect...</div></div>

and yet, we in our imperfection -setting aside that a perfect being, in all the implied sense of the word (perfectly just, perfectly good) can not make, logically, something imperfect- how can we know better than to knowingly allow something evil to happen to our own children, such as what God sat and witnessed, knowing what would happen.

and we return to the issue of the free will defense- satan either has free will of his own, which defies the definition of what makes humans special- or he does not have free will, which makes him an agent of God, created to do evil. in the classic mythology, angels serve, man was created to love.

it is also clear, that any system without major evil, without major suffering, is preferable and better than a system which does contain major evil and suffering on a large, incalculable scale.

a perfect being, certainly would not require a painful sacrifice to restore something well within their power to restore at the click of a finger...would they?

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">anyway missa Monk have to seh having taken di time to reason wid u, much respek...have to be big enuff fi admit to past recalcitrant attitude towards u...
</div></div>

I'm actually a big teddy bear. Just with bristly fur.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
but in this moment it has been a good discussion....mi bak a hurt mi cause mi been at the desktop fi hours now ...mi a go switch rooms but is almoss midnite n mi no do mi reading fi di nite yet...

if u up to it we can continue pon a next but di I a go ketch a fresh in many a way </div></div>

I enjoyed the discourse thoroughly, and look forward to its continuation on the morrow.

[quodlibet]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hey Quodlibet !! So nice to see you !!!

The bolded part of your text is what I was trying to imply/say..even in a round-a-bout fashion...[couldn't devote entire attention in the response]...anihoo..if such a God doesn't exist then how can He/She be blamed or be responsible for such disaster[s]? ...therefore...[a] He Exists or [b] if non-existent, then does not enter into the equation.

I was talking to a Haitian friend not too long ago tonight, and I will post in Biggah's thread what he said accounted for some of the unnaturalness of the disaster. </div></div>
Good to be back

---------

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I may suggest that those who argue against the existence of God wont be able to successfully argue about the God that does not exist actually allowing something. So to actually argue the point is to acknowledge the allowance, which in turn infers the existence of the God earlier denied...
</div></div>

I think you are referencing a variation of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

to simply show the applicable absurdity of this statement, we can simply substitute the tooth fairy for the word God.
...</div></div>
Of course, any absurd word subsitution may be used as a tool to show absurdity. The use of an absurd word substitution as a means to insert context is itself disengenuous.

---------

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
So why not set things down, why deal with fallible human inspiration, when so much is on the line.
...
</div></div>

Could it be that the difference is faith? The active belief in something that does not depend on the rational or the physical? If faith is the path, then isnt the dependence on the rational or the physical to deconstruct that faith in vain?

[rudemonk]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
Of course, any absurd word subsitution may be used as a tool to show absurdity. The use of an absurd word substitution as a means to insert context is itself disengenuous.</div></div>

not necessarily- it is actually a proof mechanism- one can introduce something which is false to prove something is true.

I forget the term but I can find it for you.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
So why not set things down, why deal with fallible human inspiration, when so much is on the line.
...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Could it be that the difference is faith? The active belief in something that does not depend on the rational or the physical? If faith is the path, then isnt the dependence on the rational or the physical to deconstruct that faith in vain? </div></div>

no because it is not faith itself that is the issue- it is what is believed in.

why wouldn't someone who has faith want to know that what they are invested in is true, to the greatest possible extent that they can know? It's the difference between literally believing that a man lived in a Whale's belly vs the allegorical power of the story.

It's being able to look at someone's faith, and be able to say you know what, the Sun does not require a live beating heart carved out of a person and ground into the mouth of a rock to shine and grow our crops.

I think it quickly becomes clear which is the better path, and it's a wonder as to why rational tools aren't employed more often to shape one's faith, such as it can be.

We have significant segments of our population who haven't the faintest clue as to the practical truth of say, evolution and what that means for their faith if they literally believe in Genesis- it makes them <span style="font-style: italic">wrong</span> yet for some ungodly reason they would prefer to make God a slave of a set of texts, rather than come to the logical conclusion that the books are wrong. Which is actually pretty understandable because the people who wrote the texts were just as ignorant as the ones who wrote that the earth is made of dead frost giants.

[quodlibet]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, any absurd word subsitution may be used as a tool to show absurdity. The use of an absurd word substitution as a means to insert context is itself disengenuous.</div></div>

not necessarily- it is actually a proof mechanism- one can introduce something which is false to prove something is true.

I forget the term but I can find it for you.
</div></div></div></div>

While in some cases it may be used a proof mechanisim, what you posited in the post was a contextual statement which directed meaning, not a syntactic one which would have showed failure in structure.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
So why not set things down, why deal with fallible human inspiration, when so much is on the line.
...
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could it be that the difference is faith? The active belief in something that does not depend on the rational or the physical? If faith is the path, then isnt the dependence on the rational or the physical to deconstruct that faith in vain? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no because it is not faith itself that is the issue- it is what is believed in.

why wouldn't someone who has faith want to know that what they are invested in is true, to the greatest possible extent that they can know? It's the difference between literally believing that a man lived in a Whale's belly vs the allegorical power of the story.

It's being able to look at someone's faith, and be able to say you know what, the Sun does not require a live beating heart carved out of a person and ground into the mouth of a rock to shine and grow our crops.

I think it quickly becomes clear which is the better path, and it's a wonder as to why rational tools aren't employed more often to shape one's faith, such as it can be.

We have significant segments of our population who haven't the faintest clue as to the practical truth of say, evolution and what that means for their faith if they literally believe in Genesis- it makes them <span style="font-style: italic">wrong</span> yet for some ungodly reason they would prefer to make God a slave of a set of texts, rather than come to the logical conclusion that the books are wrong. Which is actually pretty understandable because the people who wrote the texts were just as ignorant as the ones who wrote that the earth is made of dead frost giants. </div></div></div></div>

I understand your preference, but it is simply that - a preference. What we claim at the moment as rational, is based on what we accept at the moment as fact. What we claim at the moment as fact, is based on what we accept as proven. If at the time those people practiced sacrifices, there may have been a SEASON-related event, such as rain instead of what they interpreted it to be (a SACRIFICE-related event). Based on what they ACCEPTED as proven, they would have established that as fact. Based on that established fact, it would have been completely rational to perform human sacrifice.

At this time, we still have several scientific unknowns, and we accept many scientific theories as proven fact. That in inself is an act of faith - faith that the theory has some parts that we are satisfied meet the critiria we thought up to test said theory.

Ultimately the key questions that surround Christianity address issues that are currently technically unknowable - what happens to us after this body ceases to function? This is so because our rationale as inferred above, is based on human experience - which is impossible beyond the human body's ability to function. So if we cant tell what happens after we die until after we die, anything to address that larger issue is ultimately going to be rooted in faith.

[jah_yout]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Panajar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either he does not exist or he is malevolent . </div></div>

so benevolent is out of the equation?

no double-edged swords exist? it's either not exist or malevolent?
and why is 'god' a 'he'?

could it be possible that humans are just not informed enough to completely comprehend the true nature of a possible greater force often referred to as 'god' or the 'almighty'?

people interpret &amp; misinterpret...
no one knows for sure how the power is manifested...but there is a certain order to this life creation...and laws which are irrefutable...

[jah_yout]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either he does not exist or he does and is a mass murderer,.....no one has ever been tried and convicted for malevolence. </div></div>

same response as above...
you would only attribute malevolent acts to god?
what about benevolent acts?

who/what would you attribute those to?

[jah_yout]

Re: Why does god allow natural disasters...?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: remo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because He/She works in mysterious ways </div></div>

then that is not benevolent. because if god were omnipotent and omniscient, then he/she would know how to do this without being mysterious, and without unnecessary suffering.

everyone would tell you exactly what God wants, until they come up against something that is inexplicable. then they resort to the position of 'mystery' and the bounds of human comprehension, whatever that means. if god chooses to be mysterious, this is also an ethical problem with his morality.

it's not rational.

if there is a god, he or she is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. their benevolence might be appropriately matched to the degree of their other attributes. </div></div>


your premise may be off...

if you do not have the correct idea of 'god', then all your theories will be off-kilter...
the law never changes...'god' is omnipotent because nature's laws never change no matter where on earth one may go...
as mistaken as those people may be about 'god' is as mistaken as you may be about 'god'...
god is definitely not the character that some people &amp; religions have made god out to be...
in reality we right here right now represent god...

the earth itself is an organism and we like unto cells making up organs within that organism...
we are all a part of 'god'...
and god does not mean religion...religion is one form of humanity's eternal attempt to communicate with the higher knowledge/meaning/power