7 days or 7 billion years?

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

and God Created Swine flu because....?

I don't claim to have an answer for everything. I'll have a few questions for the big man upstairs myself

I thought I would contribute to the evolution line of discussion.

Your question is basically "Why do bad things happen?", or "How can evil exist in a world with a loving God?". Many philosophers have tried to answer this, I remain uncertain. I mean I could think of numerous reasons, but I would have no assurance that they are the truth.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't claim to have an answer for everything. I'll have a few questions for the big man upstairs myself

I thought I would contribute to the evolution line of discussion.

Your question is basically "Why do bad things happen?", or "How can evil exist in a world with a loving God?". Many philosophers have tried to answer this, I remain uncertain. I mean I could think of numerous reasons, but I would have no assurance that they are the truth.

The way I see it, philosophers have had trouble answering it if they began with the assumption that God exists and that all good comes from him. Doing that means that the existence of evil and suffering is a mystery.

But when you remove the assumption that all good comes from God you're left with the "sh!t happens" philosophy which explains all the available evidence and there is no longer any mystery

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

Your question is basically "Why do bad things happen?", or "How can evil exist in a world with a loving God?". Many philosophers have tried to answer this, I remain uncertain. I mean I could think of numerous reasons, but I would have no assurance that they are the truth.

I like Epicurus' opinion on the problem of evil:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

darjeeling

Smart Bug wrote: »

Antibiotics have no effect on viruses (as stated in your link also). Doctors do not prescribe antibiotics for viruses, bedrest & fluids is the course of treatment if one is laready infected.

Or rather doctors shouldn't prescribe antibiotics for viruses, though many did - either as a placebo, or to placate pushy patients who wouldn't leave the surgery without getting a pill. I suppose any hint of chest infection was the justification. Still, hopefully this practice has ended?

Húrin

Evolution, since it is a theory which was hypothesised after the evidence was uncovered, not before.

philologos

mobius42 wrote: »

I like Epicurus' opinion on the problem of evil:

Many people have already defended theism against this criticism if you look to what people have argued in the past. The fact that it is so certain leads to it's downfall.

I personally think Epicurus' example is much weaker than other arguments given against evil from secular philosophers. It is much weaker for the mere reason that people will either take Augustines free will defence, or that evil has some form of purpose. Some have come from it saying that evil is the lack of good, and it is only through knowing good that we could know evil, and it is only through knowing evil that we can no good. If everything was the same everything would be just "normal" rather than good or evil. This question alone could take up hours of discussion.

I prefer atheist arguments which use examples. What is commonly called the "noseeum" argument is probably the best that atheists have come up with. This involves giving examples of every day possible situations of evil either hypothetical or in real life, and through this suggesting that there was no sign of God in the background. These are much better than the Epicurean dillemma.

Epicurus concludes that God can definitely not exist, the noseeum concludes that it is unlikely that God exists.

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

Epicurus concludes that God can definitely not exist, the noseeum concludes that it is unlikely that God exists.

I disagree. I think he was pointing out the logical contradictions that are inherent in a benevolent God. A malevolent God is a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil, from a philosophical point of view.

philologos

mobius42 wrote: »

I disagree. I think he was pointing out the logical contradictions that are inherent in a benevolent God. A malevolent God is a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil, from a philosophical point of view.

Hence why it is called the "logical" argument from evil. I agree it is good, but it has a drawback.

Lets look at two versions:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

This only works if God intended this world to be a perfectly good world. It also only works if God does not have a perfectly good reason for the existence of evil in this world which is also possible. Evil could very much have a purpose.

Second version:

1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils? - If evil serves a purpose why would a perfectly good being want to prevent that. If evil helps us to grow as individuals why would God want to consistently stop it. Evil can help us to learn and grow as human beings. A good example of this would be Joseph forgiving his brothers in Egypt.

Genesis 50:19-21 wrote:

But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones.’ In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them.

I'd agree with the Genesis account philosophically. Although evil may be intended it can often turn out for the good.

5. Yes, God has the power. However if this evil has an ultimate purpose why would God want to stop it?

7. No, this being can still exist. It just doesn't reach mans expectations.

Do you see the problem with Epicurus now? The other authors who show examples of gratuitous or excessive evils which in their minds couldn't possibly have any good associated with them, are much more effective as they attempt often very well to nip in the bud the idea that evil has a purpose. Epicurus does not at all.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd agree with the Genesis account philosophically. Although evil may be intended it can often turn out for the good.

5. Yes, God has the power. However if this evil has an ultimate purpose why would God want to stop it?

7. No, this being can still exist. It just doesn't reach mans expectations.

The argument that evil serves an unknown but good purpose is in reality an argument that evil doesn't exist and when we perceive something as evil it's because we're not advanced enough to understand its purpose, yes?

Could it not be equally argued that God is evil, everything he does has an evil purpose and anything we perceive as good is because we are not advanced enough to understand its underlying evil purpose? It's basically a round about way of saying "I don't know why evil exists" so you can't say that the existence of evil can't be used as evidence against God, that we just don't understand its purpose, then go on to use good as evidence for God when there is nothing to suggest that we understand that any better

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The argument that evil serves an unknown but good purpose is in reality an argument that evil doesn't exist and when we perceive something as evil it's because we're not advanced enough to understand its purpose, yes?

I do think that evil exists, but that evil either a) the result of mans free will, or b) something which has a higher purpose to help us to learn and grow as human beings in some way. I can't be sure of this though, I personally don't know and I am willing to say that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could it not be equally argued that God is evil, everything he does has an evil purpose and anything we perceive as good is because we are not advanced enough to understand its underlying evil purpose?

That could be argued, but only if you can demonstarbly reason that everything God does is evil. It's another reason to counter Epicurus' theory, he assumes that God cannot exist if God is infinitely good, and infinitely powerful, I've already shown you how that reasoning is flawed even when assuming these things. He also doesn't consider another possibility, that there could be a god who isn't good, or a god who is evil. I personally don't believe that such a god exists, but if you are coming from Epicurus' argument you would have to consider it. Many religions such as Manichaeism considered that there was a good and an evil god at the same time.

I personally don't think humans can understand exactly why evil exists, no. That's why I think every argument based on evil ultimately fails for two reasons:

1. Philosophers who are theists have come up with brilliant reasons why God can exist with evil all the way from the Church Fathers such as Augustine, to the 20th century and beyond with philosophers such as Herbert McCabe, and Richard Swinburne.

2. No matter what conclusion you come to on evil it doesn't of neccessity mean that God cannot exist at all.

I think both sides have good arguments, however I do think the theists come up trumps on the evil issue.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's basically a round about way of saying "I don't know why evil exists" so you can't say that the existence of evil can't be used as evidence against God, that we just don't understand its purpose, then go on to use good as evidence for God when there is nothing to suggest that we understand that any better

Well, evil has no bearing on whether or not a higher power can exist.

Epicurus has argued that the world was meant to be perfectly good, I am not sure that this world was intended to be perfectly good. I think many people would disagree with that notion. I would argue that the existence of evil, just as the existence of good is also key in the formation of personality and of who we are. Experiences whether good or bad, chisel away at a blank canvas if you will and make each of us distinct from the other. There are numerous reasons one can think of of what purpose evil has and this is the problem for atheists using this argument I think.

As I say, for anyone interested in this I'd recommend that you check out a book on philosophy of religion. Before I make a few more posts on this I might read some of the books I used for my philosophy module on this at university.

So in conclusion, it's not that you can't use this argument, it's just that this argument is very weak, and it has plenty of potential answers.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Many people have already defended theism against this criticism if you look to what people have argued in the past. The fact that it is so certain leads to it's downfall.

I personally think Epicurus' example is much weaker than other arguments given against evil from secular philosophers. It is much weaker for the mere reason that people will either take Augustines free will defence, or that evil has some form of purpose. Some have come from it saying that evil is the lack of good, and it is only through knowing good that we could know evil, and it is only through knowing evil that we can no good. If everything was the same everything would be just "normal" rather than good or evil. This question alone could take up hours of discussion.

I prefer atheist arguments which use examples. What is commonly called the "noseeum" argument is probably the best that atheists have come up with. This involves giving examples of every day possible situations of evil either hypothetical or in real life, and through this suggesting that there was no sign of God in the background. These are much better than the Epicurean dillemma.

Epicurus concludes that God can definitely not exist, the noseeum concludes that it is unlikely that God exists.

Troughout history there have been countless disasters that cause death and distruction, both man made and caused by nature.

In the Bible these are called Gods will or Gods wrath.

So is God about forgiveness or vengence, It's not very clear.

There are too many contradictions to be ignored. Why, if God is real, and the Bible is his word why is it written with so many contradictions?

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

Troughout history there have been countless disasters that cause death and distruction, both man made and caused by nature.

Right. Let's deal with this then

Natural disasters are referred to generally as "natural evil". Although scientists such as Richard Dawkins have said that it is utterly irrational for people to assume that there is good or evil in respect to nature. Why? Due to the fact that this is the world merely doing what it should be doing. People or mankind put themselves in the way of these disasters. Dawkins argues that nature is indifferent to humanity and this is one of the only things I will agree with him on.

As for man made atrocities, this in philosophy is dealt with under the free will defence. It is only through the free choice that man has that these things can happen. Augustine is behind a lot of the work on this respect. If we didn't have this free choice we wouldn't have the freedom to do either good or evil we would just be automated we would have no choice we would just be as robots. C.S Lewis also deals with this extensively in his book "Mere Christianity".

Twin-go wrote: »

In the Bible these are called Gods will or Gods wrath.

The Bible does not refer to all natural disasters as being Gods will or Gods wrath. It is true that there are Biblical claims of Sodom and Gomorrah being God's punishment on people for their immorality. It is also true that God is said to have led the Assyrians and the Babylonians to punish the Israelites circa 750BC, and the Judeans circa 570BC. The historical books of the Bible actually document this rather well, then the prophets give reasons why this happened. The main reason being that these people fell short of their covenant, worshipped idols and were led into sin despite the fact that the Lord their God led them our of Egypt.

So you are wrong in saying that:
1) All natural disasters are necessarily God's will.
2) All wars or armed conflicts are necessarily God's will.

Twin-go wrote: »

So is God about forgiveness of of vengence, It's not very clear.

Both. God is a God of justice, He will punish you if you do not abide by the covenant He has given us. He gave the Jews the Old Covenant, and through Jesus Christ and the Apostles He has given us the New Covenant for both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). God will have mercy on those who He has chosen to show mercy upon. God has chosen to show mercy on those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and those who are willing to repent and say that they are sorry for their sins. For these people God has offered a clean slate, a new life.

God will only forgive those who seek forgiveness. If you have not repented you do not seek forgiveness. Those who reject Christ will be rejected before the Father at the final judgement.

Before we have to deal with the question "why should God punish me?" I'll deal with it rather quickly:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. Therefore God knows everything about the world, including how best to live in it.
4. In this capacity God has given us commandments to live by as a means of respecting one another and honouring Him.
5. God has authority over all creation, and God has juristiction over all the earth.
6. If you commit a crime you will be before the courts, if you sin and if you do not repent you will be before God on the day of Judgement to account for what you have done.

Twin-go wrote: »

There are too many contradictions to be ignored. Why, if God is real, and the Bible is his word why is it written with so many contradictions?

It really isn't when you think about it. It is explained rather thoroughly. I must ask before we start:

Have you read the Bible from start to finish? This is important because if you haven't you probably have missed out on quite a lot of explanations that are in there.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That could be argued, but only if you can demonstarbly reason that everything God does is evil.

Can you demonstrably argue that everything god does is good and if not what makes you think you can argue the opposite?

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, evil has no bearing on whether or not a higher power can exist.

It has a bearing on whether or not a being that's supposed to be infinitely good can exist

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you demonstrably argue that everything god does is good and if not what makes you think you can argue the opposite?

By demonstrably argue do you mean go through every single thing that God has done on earth and argue whether or not it is good or evil? I don't think you or I have the time or patience to do that

I think that evil has a function. You and others wouldn't agree with me. That's the main issue if we are to argue about the presence of evil.

I can think about bad things that happened to me in the past, and now I can see why they happened to me, and I would even go as far as saying I am thankful (like Joseph in the Genesis 50 quote I provided) that they did happen. Why am I glad? Due to the fact that through these bad things I benefited from them, and I grew from having these things happen to me.

Of course these bad things that happened were nowhere near as bad as what happens to some people and I acknowledge that, but it is worthy to think about.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It has a bearing on whether or not a being that's supposed to be infinitely good can exist

It has bearing if the claim was that God intended the world to be infinitely good. I personally don't believe He did. I think there are reasons for why the world is the way it is. You and others on this thread do not. That's the primary issue we are going to bump into when we are talking.

I think there are reasons for why God would allow evil in this world.

Certainly if God has intended the world to be infinitely good, and if there is no purpose for evil there would be a huge bearing on it. I don't agree with these two assumptions however. If you could discuss why you think God would intend or did intend the world to be infinitely good, and if you can argue why or why not there is a purpose for evil we'd be onto a good start.

Your argument is only effective if the ones you are arguing against, in the specific me, or in the general Christians, believe that evil does not have a function, and believe that God intended the world to be infinitely good. I am not sure I share either of these views hence your argument won't be addressed to me, but will be addressed to someone who believes both of these things.

Turd Ferguson

I dont know what eveyone is talking about. It's common knowledge that the world as we know it was created when Chuck Norris and Mr T had an arm-wrestling match, the result of which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

By demonstrably argue do you mean go through every single thing that God has done on earth and argue whether or not it is good or evil? I don't think you or I have the time or patience to do that

You say that I can't make the argument unless I do it so why do you continue to make the equivalent argument?

Jakkass wrote: »

Certainly if God has intended the world to be infinitely good, and if there is no purpose for evil there would be a huge bearing on it.

If everything has an underlying good purpose, whether known or unknown, how can anything be evil? Surely it can only appear to be evil?

philologos

Sam, when I said that you must demonstrably show that everything God does is evil. I was replying to this quote:

Could it not be equally argued that God is evil, everything he does has an evil purpose and anything we perceive as good is because we are not advanced enough to understand its underlying evil purpose?

To show that everything that God does has an evil purpose. You aren't arguing that sometimes God is evil. You are arguing that God is evil all the time. To argue this you would have to show that not one thing God has done has been good. Do you not understand this much? I'm merely saying to hold the position you do and for it to be somewhat coherent this is what you would have to do.

It also raises the question of good by whose standards. The standards of man? Who says the standards of man are not flawed?

This was in response to my post where I said:

I'd agree with the Genesis account philosophically. Although evil may be intended it can often turn out for the good.

5. Yes, God has the power. However if this evil has an ultimate purpose why would God want to stop it?

7. No, this being can still exist. It just doesn't reach mans expectations.

I didn't say that God never lets evil happen. Rather I have argued that God does let evil happen for particular purposes. The Scripture backs up my point. I don't make the equivalent argument. I do not even make the point that God is not capable of allowing evil.

Exodus 7:3 wrote:

But I will harden the Pharoah's heart and I will multily my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt

Romans 1:24-25 wrote:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever.

1 Timothy 1:19-20 wrote:

By rejecting conscience, certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith; among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Sometimes people have to learn the hard way. If they are not willing to follow God, they will have to learn the hard way by experiencing difficulty in their own paths and eventually repent.

In Exodus God hardened the Pharoahs heart so that he and the nation of Egypt would learn not to mistreat foreigners in their land. This also served as a lesson to the Israelites not to do the same. In the Torah the Jews are commanded by God not to mistreat a foreigner or an alien in their land as they were mistreated in the land of Egypt.

In Romans it basically says that God will give the unrepentant up to their sins and their lusts so that they can learn the hard way.

Paul writes to Timothy that he has done the same. As such I am led to believe that there is a purpose to let people who will not see sense themselves to experience evil so that they may learn through experience not to do it again. Makes sense to me.

If everything has an underlying good purpose, whether known or unknown, how can anything be evil? Surely it can only appear to be evil?

That's another take on the issue. Some Christians argue this, however, it is mainly Hindus and Buddhists who argue that evil doesn't really exist it is just our interpretation of it. I would lean more towards the definition that evil is either 1) the abuse of good (as C.S Lewis explains), or 2) the lack of good.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

To show that everything that God does has an evil purpose. You aren't arguing that sometimes God is evil. You are arguing that God is evil all the time. To argue this you would have to show that not one thing God has done has been good. Do you not understand this much? I'm merely saying to hold the position you do and for it to be somewhat coherent this is what you would have to do.

You are arguing that God is good all the time. To argue this you would have to show that not one thing God has done has been evil. You say you don't have the patience, and yet you make the argument anyway. You just make the assumption that he is good and that there must be some unknown reason for the things that appear to be bad but say that I can't make the assumption that he is evil and that there must be some unknown reason for things that appear to be good.

Hardly seems fair that I must comprehensively prove my case before making the argument but you're allowed to simply assume you're right

mobius42

You could argue for centuries over good, evil and its connection with God, but the whole topic is moot unless you can prove that God exists in the first place. The existence of evil certainly does not help theists' arguments.

philologos

We need to clarify something if we are going to get into a debate about whether God is good or evil all the time:

By whose standard are you establishing what is good or what is evil? As you well know Christians and atheists differ over this issue.

Of course it is highly possible that under the standards of corrupt man God could be perceived as evil because His interests are often different to theirs. I don't see that as an adequate reason to regard God as evil however.

Elaborate on this. I still believe this argument isn't even worth having if we cannot even come to an agreement of what standard of "good" or "evil" we are going to use first.

Thanks for the discussion all, it's been good so far

mobius42: Of course, it's funny why atheists want to argue about God's attributes so much when they don't believe that He exists. To argue about God's attributes you have to assume that He exists.

There is no absolute proof for God. However, there are indications as I've said before. I won't be going into that again, I talked about it a few pages ago. I believe that God most probably does exist on account of these indications.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to clarify something if we are going to get into a debate about whether God is good or evil all the time:

By whose standard are you establishing what is good or what is evil? As you well know Christians and atheists differ over this issue.

Of course it is highly possible that under the standards of corrupt man God could be perceived as evil because His interests are often different to theirs. I don't see that as an adequate reason to regard God as evil however.

Elaborate on this. I still believe this argument isn't even worth having if we cannot even come to an agreement of what standard of "good" or "evil" we are going to use first.

Thanks for the discussion all, it's been good so far

You say the argument is not worth having and yet you continue to make the assumption that god is good and there is an unknown purpose behind that which appears to be evil. If you don't want to have the discussion, surely you should not be asserting that one side of the discussion is correct?

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

mobius42: Of course, it's funny why atheists want to argue about God's attributes so much when they don't believe that He exists. To argue about God's attributes you have to assume that He exists.

It is amusing, I admit. However, what I think atheists are trying to do when we argue about God's attributes is show that the concept of God itself is flawed . Since we can't convince you based on physical evidence (which you said yourself does not exist), we try and convince you based on your own concept of God.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no absolute proof for God. However, there are indications as I've said before. I won't be going into that again, I talked about it a few pages ago. I believe that God most probably does exist on account of these indications.

The difference between us is that you think they are indications of God's existence while I don't see any indications at all.:)

johnny_knoxvile

So if talk about Santa Claus', or the Yeti's attributes i assume they exist?

Ok...

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say the argument is not worth having and yet you continue to make the assumption that god is good and there is an unknown purpose behind that which appears to be evil. If you don't want to have the discussion, surely you should not be asserting that one side of the discussion is correct?

I don't think I mentioned that everything that God does is good in this argument so far.

However, I do believe it and you are right to bring it in. However, if we cannot agree on what is good, or on what is evil then the terms are just arbitrary and of little use aren't they?

I don't believe mankind on their own can draw up an effective standard of what is good or evil. Neither do I believe any of these are relative as you well know. If we cannot establish what is good or evil it's just wasting our time using blank and incoherent variables. Would you agree with this much?

I'm not asserting that any side of this discussion is correct so far, it's about what is most probably true, or what seems more reasonable. If you look back I even said that there is some value in the evidential or the "noseeum" argument from the atheist side. I do think that the theist side of the argument is stronger on the point of evil however.

If we are to assume God exists and that the Judeo-Christian revelation is true, surely it is through Biblical examples where we can truly see God's goodness and faithfulness for ourselves?

ScumLord

Look, this is going to go on forever and there's only one way to sort it. I challenge Jesus (the H) Christ to a fight! One on one, no weapons first man to get knocked out loses.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

Look, this is going to go on forever and there's only one way to sort it. I challenge Jesus (the H) Christ to a fight! One on one, no weapons first man to get knocked out loses.

In fairness if we had stuck the original topic the main debate we would have had would have been much less interesting as I personally see evolution as possible as a mechanism involved in God's creation of the universe. Whereas me and Sam Vimes don't have any agreement on this topic (God and evil) which makes it more interesting. I'm also much much better versed on it than on the topic of cosmology / life origins.

johnny_knoxvile

ScumLord wrote: »

Look, this is going to go on forever and there's only one way to sort it. I challenge Jesus (the H) Christ to a fight! One on one, no weapons first man to get knocked out loses.

hes going to punch the shít out of you. Then go for a double leg take down, take side control, ground and pound before taking an armbar to finish.

ScumLord

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

hes going to punch the shít out of you. Then go for a double leg take down, take side control, ground and pound before taking an armbar to finish.

No he won't, I'll just ask for forgiveness every time I punch him.

Smart Bug

ScumLord wrote: »

No he won't, I'll just ask for forgiveness every time I punch him.

Keep your punches to the body (of Christ). Don't forget he's especially vulnerable to the cross-punch.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

Right. Let's deal with this then

Natural disasters are referred to generally as "natural evil". Although scientists such as Richard Dawkins have said that it is utterly irrational for people to assume that there is good or evil in respect to nature. Why? Due to the fact that this is the world merely doing what it should be doing. People or mankind put themselves in the way of these disasters. Dawkins argues that nature is indifferent to humanity and this is one of the only things I will agree with him on.

Are they? I must admit I have never heard of them refered to as such.

I too agree with Dawkins on the fact that nature is indifferent to man.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for man made atrocities, this in philosophy is dealt with under the free will defence. It is only through the free choice that man has that these things can happen. Augustine is behind a lot of the work on this respect. If we didn't have this free choice we wouldn't have the freedom to do either good or evil we would just be automated we would have no choice we would just be as robots. C.S Lewis also deals with this extensively in his book "Mere Christianity".

If somthing is good its Gods doing. If it is evil it is because of the free will of Man. Religion eliminates some of peoples free choice. If you beleive in God it puts conditions on how you live your life. It limits you choices. It gives you Rules you have to live by to reach Heaven.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible does not refer to all natural disasters as being Gods will or Gods wrath. It is true that there are Biblical claims of Sodom and Gomorrah being God's punishment on people for their immorality. It is also true that God is said to have led the Assyrians and the Babylonians to punish the Israelites circa 750BC, and the Judeans circa 570BC. The historical books of the Bible actually document this rather well, then the prophets give reasons why this happened. The main reason being that these people fell short of their covenant, worshipped idols and were led into sin despite the fact that the Lord their God led them our of Egypt.

So God is Vengefull? God punished and killed people because they did not live as he wished them to. He gave them free will to live how they wished and then lead other people to kill them because of the way the chose to live, nice....

Jakkass wrote: »

So you are wrong in saying that:
1) All natural disasters are necessarily God's will.
2) All wars or armed conflicts are necessarily God's will.



Both. God is a God of justice, He will punish you if you do not abide by the covenant He has given us. He gave the Jews the Old Covenant, and through Jesus Christ and the Apostles He has given us the New Covenant for both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). God will have mercy on those who He has chosen to show mercy upon. God has chosen to show mercy on those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and those who are willing to repent and say that they are sorry for their sins. For these people God has offered a clean slate, a new life.

So the free will is out the window. You must follow to Covenant. You have free will but if you make what God considers the wrong choice you must repent or suffer the consiquences.

Jakkass wrote: »

God will only forgive those who seek forgiveness. If you have not repented you do not seek forgiveness. Those who reject Christ will be rejected before the Father at the final judgement.

ok, an example: 2 people are "sinners" the first stole a bag of crisps from his local shop. The second has killed several people. (Both have broke 1 of the 10 comandments)

The killer repents and seeks forgiveness from God and enters into the kingdom of Heaven.

The guy that stole the bag of crisps dosn't thinks it that big a deal and refused to repent and spends all eternity in "Hell"?

Really??

Jakkass wrote: »

Before we have to deal with the question "why should God punish me?" I'll deal with it rather quickly:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. Therefore God knows everything about the world, including how best to live in it.
4. In this capacity God has given us commandments to live by as a means of respecting one another and honouring Him.
5. God has authority over all creation, and God has juristiction over all the earth.
6. If you commit a crime you will be before the courts, if you sin and if you do not repent you will be before God on the day of Judgement to account for what you have done..

1. No he didn't - there is no proof beside a 2000 year old book.
2. No he's not - He is however Narcissistic charactor.
3. Therefore he knows there is suffering everywhere, in war torn countries, areas in the grips of famine and many incureable deaseases and people with physical and mental disabilities. Nice world.
4. Rules to eliminate free will.
5. Including Cloning? or has he taken his eye off the ball?
6. Refer back to my previous point on how flawed that ideal is.

Jakkass wrote: »

It really isn't when you think about it. It is explained rather thoroughly. I must ask before we start:

Have you read the Bible from start to finish? This is important because if you haven't you probably have missed out on quite a lot of explanations that are in there.

No, But i did attend Mass weekly for the first 18 years of my live. Have had 4 hours a week of religios education throughout my school years. Have been baptised, made my first Communion, My Confirmation and was married in a church (My wife is practicing Chathlic). I've gone to retreat weekends, I have done community work with the church in my parish, I have relitives that have entered the Preist hood. That is a lot of time and contact with the church without any answers to my questions and without any proof of God.

If I were to commit as much of my time to Sience I have no doubt I would have several Phds to my name.