Does God cause natural disasters or just decide not to stop them?

[goodlife]

eg earthquakes, famines etc

[DTCwordfan]

She couldn't stay away. Welcome back Naomi, you have been sorely missed, a bit like the returning "offspring" to be pc. What's your tipple?

[naomi24]

Thank you DT - long G&T, little ice and a slice of lime will do nicely. :o)

[sandyRoe]

THe return of the prodigal daughter, surely?

[DTCwordfan]

coming up a strong AB Tanqueray and Tonic (with lime, slice and squeezed, a little ice) - you will need it when you see all the folk who have gone or been forced off.

[Khandro]

Welcome back Naomi x

[naomi24]

Thanks Khandro. :o)

Back to the question.

The Epicurean Paradox...

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?

[boxtops]

Welcome back,. naomi!

[naomi24]

Hiya Boxy, thanks. Nice to see you. :o)

[naomi24]

Hi Eddie. Thanks. :o)

[RATTER15]

WB Naomi, if you carry on like this we will once again be calling you a regular.

[KARL]

Regarding ancient history and geological timescales, I recently became aware that book-perfect (kosher) Jews quite literally (not just figuratively, as in the Papua New Guinea "one, two, three, many" where who cares how many more than three so that is where numbers in the language stop) assume/accept that the universe is 4000 years old or thereby. Therefore, they refer to geological events others take as perhaps millions of years old as having taken place "some 4000 years ago". No amount of scientific evidence (carbon dating, projections of light-year history to arrive at the BIg Bang, etc.) is accepted. This is why discussing anything on the basis of how likely it is, analysing/dissecting propositions such as the question presented in the OP, is never likely to result in general agreement or even the believers and non-believers finding common ground except to agree to differ. Those who choose to believe will continue to believe (irrespective of the requirement not to scrutinise/question/doubt) and continue to evade the uncomfortable vagueness, contradictions and general absence of an unshakable basis - except their blind faith. Non-believers will continue to fail to understand that religion is in essence a state of mind (i.e. a perception, not based on the tangible things in life) which they do not necessarily have a right to change (i.e. only to protect third parties and/or in extreme cases, such as religious intolerance and violence). Religion is a bit like romantic love, it greatly increases tolerance of discomfort, ignores pretty much everything that is sensible, bends facts and is perhaps best described as a form of derangement. It is sometimes also likened to substance addiction.

Normally, there is no reason for believers and non-believers not to co-exist quite happily. As with political debate, so discussion of religious philosophy (including atheism at one end of the scale) can and should be undertaken, as so often on AB - this is an intellectual exercise that is well worthwhile simply for its own sake because it broadens the mind. But a change in belief is unlikely to be a widespread result - there is no prospect of irrefutable proof either way as to whether there is or is not a god, or a few thousand of them. My particular model of what a god might want of us (if there is one) is that worshippers should get a life and stop worshipping.

[Khandro]

@ Karl, From your exalted position, you have managed to patronize everyone !

[keyplus90]

See that's what I am all about. I can wake up the deads too.

Welcome back Naomi. Although I always knew that you would be back because I could tell with my experience that apart from AB you had nothing much to do but I must admit you took a little longer than I expected. It must have been very frustrating reading but not posting.

[RATTER15]

Keyplus, put the claws away!! afraid she will continue to make you look an absolute fool yet again.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //See that's what I am all about. I can wake up the deads too.//

Ha ha! What you're 'all about' is abundantly evident, Keyplus, but thank you for the welcome. However, had you done your homework you would have known you're not the irresistible lure you think you are and you wouldn't have put your foot in it yet again. Do keep up, old chap! ;o)

Ratter, he needs no help from me on that score. :o)

[Old_Geezer]

That's not much of a paradox. First it assumes the human definition of evil is something a deity agrees with, which may not be so. But even if the deity accepted the definition of evil and held the same opinion as yourselves, then it may be unwilling to prevent evil, not from malevolence but out of a greater insight that a greater good will come from allowing it to continue.

[ladybirder]

No, nature, often helped along by man, causes them.

And Naomi, you won't remember me but I always read your posts and I'm very pleased to see you back, you were a terrific contributor.

[naomi24]

OG, I think it's spot on. If the human definition of evil isn't something a deity agrees with, of what use is he to mankind? Saying if evil is allowed to continue then a greater good may ensue is precisely the excuse the religious use to negate the many failings of their supposedly compassionate god.

Thanks Ladybirder. It's nice to meet you. :o)

[Khandro]

Will somebody PLEASE define 'God'? These discussions are pointless without a definition of just what it is you are negating.