Evidence for God from Science

I am not quite able to fully comprehend this logic, and find it rather odd and unusual.

Why is it that whenever something tremendously awful or heinous happens people either take it as evidence that God is to blame, or there is no God to begin with?

I've had terrible things happen to me in my life, and I've seen far worse happen to others. I do look to see if there is someone to blame, but I accept it when there is no one. Occasionally, when machinery of mine crashes or malfunctions seemingly deliberately I'll curse at it out of anger, but never God, nor at him. The thought has only once or twice come to mind, and I didn't even regard it as logical enough a reason to ponder as a logical explanation.

I simply don't see how something catastrophic or otherwise bad happens, some people think God is to blame, either by, in their minds, being neglectful, or nonexistent -especially if the latter. I doubt that God is responsible for something causing havoc by its own design. God does not control everything as a puppet master, nor is he everything. He has his own things to deal with that are likely more important. If you consider the fact that we are in one of likely many universes, on a small planet that isn't even a thousandth of the space in our local system, and there are objects and stars large enough to not even be scratched if impacted by us, I would say that if he has any responsibilities to our world, our minuscule planet is probably one of the least important of them.

Nor do I see any logic to claiming him to be all powerful/omnipotent meaning he is all responsible. People are responsible for their own actions, nature is responsible for its actions, and thusly God is responsible solely for his own actions. I will not deny that he has intervened from time to time, but most often, the outcome and therefore blame of something is measured by what is thrown into the mix, rather than what has the most authority.


Therefore, I see no logical reasoning in the assumption that all misfortune is to blame of him, nor is it necessarily proof of him not existing. To blame someone else of something he was uninvolved in is, in my sight silly and a childish means of expressing one's anger.



All in all, I will gladly hear whatever explanations or whatnot you have to offer in reply.

No. God is not to blame for everything.. I'm alarmed at this too.. People blaming God when someone dies from lung cancer forgetting that the person in question smoked cigarettes most of his life. People blaming God for car accidents when they forget that man has made very dangerous vehicles that can travel over 100 miles per hour, etc... There will always be trouble in this life.. John 16:33. It's not always God's fault, it's just the world we live in sometimes.

Ngakunui wrote:All in all, I will gladly hear whatever explanations or whatnot you have to offer in reply.

Just to clarify... This Bible gives 4 reasons why people can perish (or have trouble) in this world.

1. Satan can take a life .
2. God can take a life.
3. Our sins find us out and destroy us.
4. The circumstances (or physical laws) can destroy us such as natural evil.

Hope this helps...

This especially never made sense, since those same people won't use it the other way. If something awful or heinous happens why does it mean that God is at fault or he doesn't exist. Then they would also have to say that if something great and wonderful happens then God is responsible for it and so he does exist.

LOL hahah damn thats huge wall of text

But anyway, you said aaalll that yet you never thought to yourself " hmmm hang on maybe there is a plan in all of this suffering?" Look at this: Luke 15:11-32 the whooole point of this parable is that God allows you to pervert your free will but it will only result in suffering, thus this suffering makes you understand that something is wrong like maybe what person is doing and then it will result in him seeking forgiveness. Another reason is maybe that the death of a person is part of His plan to bring some one else close to him, considering that the person who died IS christian or a person who will never ever believe ( not sure on the unbelievers death tho maybe some one else could fix that up) See God has every right to bring judgment and to raise up anyone.

In a nut shell tho the whole suffering deal is to bring you back to the Lord. Its not that hard to understand but i do admit that there is more to it that we as finite beings cannot comprehend.

You also states -"Free will isn't an excuse if he's omnipotent--he could negate suffering and preserve free will if he were omniscient, even if that's impossible by defintion. If he can't, then that means the definition of free will is more powerful than God."

If God were to stop every evil action that were to occur that would eliminate free will, this is why there is suffering because God is Just, so he writes the the end from the beginning meaning every thing has been planned already. Free will isn't more powerful than God, God restricts himself purposely so that his creation could make decisions on their own and choose whether to be with him or not. Don't you know that self control is part of being omnipotent? If he couldn't be able to restrict himself how could he be omnipotent ? how can he allow free will? Don't get me wrong, he DOES have the power to do what he likes but he doesn't do so because is fully Just.

When it is suggested that "the world could be better" .... better by whose standard?

Well, which would you rather have: appendixes that explode occasionally and kill people, or appendixes that don't explode occasionally and kill people?

I'm using the standard of "pain and suffering are bad, happiness and joy are good" but using basically any standard you want, I'm pretty sure exploding appendixes aren't fitting that ideal.

Here's my question to you then: can you think of any "standard" for which the world has no room for improvement? And if so, what makes that standard true? Otherwise, I'm sticking with exploding organs being bad for you =P

happycynic wrote:Well, which would you rather have: appendixes that explode occasionally and kill people, or appendixes that don't explode occasionally and kill people?

I'm using the standard of "pain and suffering are bad, happiness and joy are good" but using basically any standard you want, I'm pretty sure exploding appendixes aren't fitting that ideal.

Here's my question to you then: can you think of any "standard" for which the world has no room for improvement? And if so, what makes that standard true? Otherwise, I'm sticking with exploding organs being bad for you =P

That's exactly the point. Your standard, and I'll include exploding appendixes, takes a Utilitarian approach that what is "good" and what is "bad" is based upon what benefits the greatest number of people. It's temporal, and it carries with it the implicit assumption that there can be no overriding elements above what can be seen, felt and understood by humanity.

The standard for which the world has no room for improvement in my opinion is Jesus Christ in terms of His sufficiency to meet the ultimate eternal needs of all mankind.

Clearly, we come at this from different directions.

happycynic wrote:Well, which would you rather have: appendixes that explode occasionally and kill people, or appendixes that don't explode occasionally and kill people?

I'm using the standard of "pain and suffering are bad, happiness and joy are good" but using basically any standard you want, I'm pretty sure exploding appendixes aren't fitting that ideal.

Here's my question to you then: can you think of any "standard" for which the world has no room for improvement? And if so, what makes that standard true? Otherwise, I'm sticking with exploding organs being bad for you =P

And in case your ultimate goal is to deny God, I don't know if you've heard but the problem of evil and suffering in the world is actually a strong argument FOR the existence of an omni^3 God.

I hadn't heard, actually.

Byblos wrote:And in case your ultimate goal is to deny God, I don't know if you've heard but the problem of evil and suffering in the world is actually a strong argument FOR the existence of an omni^3 God.

Nope, never heard that one before, but I'd like to hear it now. How does that work? there's a couple ways I can see someone trying to wiggle out of Omni^3 meaning that the world MUST be perfect, but I can't for the life of me see any way to turn it around and say that Omni^3 means the world must be IMPERFECT.

Oh, and I don't think God exists; if you want to call that denying him go right ahead, but it seems an odd way to put it. I deny his existence, sure, but saying that I deny the guy himself seems a bit odd. Just a phraseology point (everyone knows what you mean by "deny god") but thought I'd point it out.

And anyhow, I'm arguing this point because I enjoy debate on the topic, not because I'm secretly hoping to make you all lose your faith. If you did lose your faith I might give you a high-five, but that's about the extent of my nefarious plans

happycynic wrote:I hadn't heard, actually.

Byblos wrote:And in case your ultimate goal is to deny God, I don't know if you've heard but the problem of evil and suffering in the world is actually a strong argument FOR the existence of an omni^3 God.

Nope, never heard that one before, but I'd like to hear it now. How does that work? there's a couple ways I can see someone trying to wiggle out of Omni^3 meaning that the world MUST be perfect, but I can't for the life of me see any way to turn it around and say that Omni^3 means the world must be IMPERFECT.

Oh, and I don't think God exists; if you want to call that denying him go right ahead, but it seems an odd way to put it. I deny his existence, sure, but saying that I deny the guy himself seems a bit odd. Just a phraseology point (everyone knows what you mean by "deny god") but thought I'd point it out.

And anyhow, I'm arguing this point because I enjoy debate on the topic, not because I'm secretly hoping to make you all lose your faith. If you did lose your faith I might give you a high-five, but that's about the extent of my nefarious plans

I assure you your debating the non-existence of God will be of no effect on our faith. I can't make the same promise for you though .

First a question: by what standard do you declare something or someone evil?

I am very confident that it is the argument that because, supposedly, the problem of evil presupposes that an objective moral standard exists, and morality cannot exists without God, it therefore follows that God must exist.

And it's not a very good argument at all. Because if the theist really insists, you can call it simply the "problem of suffering". It is an argument attempting to show an internal incosistency in the theist's beliefs, it does not require the skeptic to assume that objective evil exists.

And just in case some ignorant, incompetent, intellectually dishonest individual pops up and accuses me of attacking Christianity or whatever, I'll be happy to lay out the theodicy that I think makes sense if I am asked to.

I'm asking.

smiley wrote:And just in case some ignorant, incompetent, intellectually dishonest individual pops up and accuses me of attacking Christianity or whatever, I'll be happy to lay out the theodicy that I think makes sense if I am asked to.

Smiley,

Are you suggesting that I or any of the other moderators here are ignorant, incompetant, and intellectually dishonest?

bart