In reply to that closed "Where is your God now???" thread.

[Helm]

Natural disasters wouldn't tend to be disasters if people didn't opt to live in natural disaster zones. So like everything else you can just slap the "because we have free will" tag on it if you were that way inclinded.

[Desperado †]

Is there free will if the people are ignorant to the dangers (which they often are in these situations)?

In which case God is immoral as he is leaving these people to be ignorant and hence die.

If you are ignorant there is no actual free will as your decision was based without the (or all of the) facts.

[Helm]

The only people who will have been ignorant of the dangers would have been the very first people to discover that natural disasters will take place in a certain area. But even then they had the free will to put their lives in danger exploring and colonising new lands when they could have stayed where they knew it was safe to be, but that isn't human nature. It was dangerous to go to the moon but we went there anyway.

[Desperado †]

The only people who will have been ignorant of the dangers would have been the very first people to discover that natural disasters will take place in a certain area. But even then they had the free will to put their lives in danger exploring and colonising new lands when they could have stayed where they knew it was safe to be, but that isn't human nature. It was dangerous to go to the moon but we went there anyway.

Going to the moon isn't a necessity. Having somewhere to live is. And we knew it was dangerous to go to the moon.

Many of the people killed by natural disasters had no idea they were living in a disaster prone area, hence it cannot be put down to free will as they were ignorant on the issue. Hence God is immoral if he is omnipotent.

[Helm]

If the people living there were ignorant then that would be the fault of the people who weren't ignorant not informing them, though whether they decided to inform them is still a matter of free will.

And there's going to be a great more to the story of humanity in space than just the one off moon landing, that's just the very start of a long process.

[Desperado †]

Not if they lived in an age before anybody knew of these things.

Are you going to blame them for not discovering it fast enough?

I think we can establish that if God exists and is omnipotent he is most definitely immoral, or at least not wholly good. I mean, the whole idea of free will, the fact that he lets innocents suffer due to the wrongdoings of others doesn't put him on Santa's good list.

[Desperado †]

And besides, people are nearly always ignorant to the consequences (unless it is their only choice), as nobody wants to be killed by a natural disaster. Why does God put them through this suffering?

[black-dragon]

Except for the little fact that God is supposedly omnipotent. He could make a painless world and give us free will.

[Helm]

A universe where bad things could never happen to anyone ever would be a universe without any free will at all if you think about it. We would just be like puppets on strings.

[black-dragon]

A universe where bad things could never happen to anyone ever would be a universe without any free will at all if you think about it. We would just be like puppets on strings.

If God is omnipotent he can make it happen. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent.

[PointOfViewGun]

If God is omnipotent he can make it happen. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent.

It's not that it can't or it can. It's that it do not.

[black-dragon]

It's not that he can't or he can. It's that he do not.

It's something that an omnibenevolent God would do. He's one or the other: he can't be both. It's interesting how God is supposedly beyond logic when it's being used against him, yet it's perfectly okay to use it in his defense...

[PointOfViewGun]

It's something that an omnibenevolent God would do. He's one or the other: he can't be both. It's interesting how God is supposedly beyond logic when it's being used against him, yet it's perfectly okay to use it in his defense...

Just because it doesn't prevent disasters from happening doesn't mean it is not omnibenevolent. The fact that it have given all of us lives is benevolent enough.

[Playfishpaste]

It's something that an omnibenevolent God would do. He's one or the other: he can't be both. It's interesting how God is supposedly beyond logic when it's being used against him, yet it's perfectly okay to use it in his defense...

That's cause god is both logical and illogical.

Cwatididthar?

Anyway, natural disasters are a good act.

[Desperado †]

A universe where bad things could never happen to anyone ever would be a universe without any free will at all if you think about it. We would just be like puppets on strings.

That totally depends on your definition of bad.

There is a massive difference between - "Oh, I failed a math test, why didn't God make me pass?" and "Oh, 11 million killed in concentration camps, why didn't God save them?".

And God must either give the human race complete free will or none, because if you interfere at all you are not giving free will. Hence, he has not given us free will as he answers to certain prayers and has interfered with human affairs in history according to the old testament.

The whole 'free will' argument is a wall of crap built to try and cover up the contradiction that bad things happen despite God being omnipotent and wholly good. God is either not omnipotent, evil doesn't exist or he is not wholly good, or God does not exist at all. Free will along with these other statements doesn't work - a wholly good God who is omniponent wouldn't give us free will as he'd forsee the suffering it would cause. And again, if he gave us free will he can't have apparently interfered in our past - in fact, he can't of interfered with humans at all, so how would we know about him?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

There is a massive difference between - "Oh, I failed a math test, why didn't God make me pass?" and "Oh, 11 million killed in concentration camps, why didn't God save them?

Do you realize how many millions of cells die daily in the course of conducting normal everyday activities? Actually, in order for you to live, it is necessary that those cells die. Why didn't god save the billions of cells who have died in your body?

[Desperado †]

Do you realize how many millions of cells die daily in the course of conducting normal everyday activities? Actually, in order for you to live, it is necessary that those cells die. Why didn't god save the billions of cells who have died in your body?

Yes I do. I didn't say he should or shouldn't have saved those people, you are putting words in my mouth. I was simply explaining the massive differences you can have between definitions of bad.

[Tspk91]

Do you realize how many millions of cells die daily in the course of conducting normal everyday activities? Actually, in order for you to live, it is necessary that those cells die. Why didn't god save the billions of cells who have died in your body?

Because those cells usually dont think and dont feel and dont have emotions nor are sentient beings. Usually.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Because those cells usually dont think and dont feel and dont have emotions nor are sentient beings. Usually.

yet without those cells, you would die.

[Avendiel]

Do you realize how many millions of cells die daily in the course of conducting normal everyday activities? Actually, in order for you to live, it is necessary that those cells die. Why didn't god save the billions of cells who have died in your body?

Really dumb point. Cells aren't morally relevant in the way that people are.

Unless you really think that the people that died in the Holocaust are equivalent to your dead skin cells, I think you should have kept quiet on this one.

....In fact, I think you really just should have kept quiet on this one anyway.