god and natural disasters

Why was a God said to be loving just and merciful inclined to construct a planet that is bursting at the seams with “natural disasters”?

This has always been the biggest stumbling block for me as an atheist. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. People talk about theodicy but this goes beyond that. Evil is a man made contraption. But earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanos are not. And extintion events from out in space are not.

I think only when a religionist is able to offer me a reasonable argument regarding this can I consider God…if God exist…not to be some sort of moral monster. It just completely bewilders me.

That phrase removes the post from recognition as appropriate for a philosophy forum.

This is only a problem for those who project “god” as a human being like themselves.

Another reject.


I think you are right. I looked up the word and it did not mean what I thought it did.

I should have substitued instead “people who are religious”.

I was thinking of the God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Musllims. The God of Moses and Abraham. it just seems that, if there be a Creator, He does not much care about us. Maybe the God of Rabbi Kushner who is benevolent but not omnipotent.

That’s three gods.

No it’s not. It’s the same God of Moses and Abraham. The conflicts arose historically over how to interpret Him. In particular the Christian invention of Jesus and the Muslim invention of Mohammad.

it’s 5 gods: the Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the three Christian ones…

just playin, carry on

The problem of evil is only a problem if “god” is thought of as a person.

So Jesus is the one and only deity, according to Humpty.

Jesus of course famously said that it is better to gouge out an eye rather than go to hell.

I fail to see how anything close to that is implied in my post…as a matter of fact, my post implies the opposite of your statement.

The problem with evil is that, in the absense of God, it always comes down to the conflicting narratives of mere mortals. One person sees abortion as an abomination. Another sees it as a woman’s sacred right. Still others see it as a “necessary evil”.

But how do we determine philosophically which narrative is the most reasonable? And suppose we can’t?

Voltaire raises the same question in Candide. But, if God wanted to create a world such that it is very attractive on one hand while it isn’t reasonable to become too attached to it on the other, this would be a perfect place. Anyway, according to Christianity God sought to overcome the moral monster problem by incarnating and suffering the world as a mortal human. You may find that idea bewildering in itself though.

Philosophically, we can look at this as “the best of all possible worlds”, sure, but for those hundreds of thousands of victums still suffering mightly down in Port au Prince, Haiti it is far, far from a “perfect place”.

And bewildering does not even come close to my reaction to a God said to be loving just and merciful allowing something like this to occur—if He had the power to make it otherwise.

“God works in mysterious ways” is really all the True Believers have to rationalize it.

Ironically, I wish I could embrace that myself. But I cannot. Instead, I have to acknowledge this terrible thing as just another brute facticity embedded in an essentially absurd and meaningless universe. A universe that doesn’t even know we exist. That can’t know.

“God works in mysterious ways” claims there is an explanation, but we don’t know what it is. Your position seems to be that there is no explanation. The first position is more hopeful. There might be an explanation. It might be a good one. And God might disclose it to us eventually.

How can there be an ultimate explanation unless there is ultimate point of view able to offer one?

And, yes, there might be one. But that is only relevant for each and everyone of us if we are able to believe there is one. But in a philosophy venue when you make such a claim you are asked to back it up.

Empirically and/or analytically.

Right now im considering an imperfect and finite God that is pantheistic, but still nice.

There may be an ultimate POV, but it would require omniscience, an ability none of us possesses. Even revelations directly from God would require interpretation by human receivers from our limited POV. However, science doesn’t offer ultimate POVs either. What science tells us is true today, further research often shows untrue or only partial truth tomorrow. So there are epistemological problems and limitations wherever one turns.

I answered your question. I presented an advantage in believing in God over not believing. I claimed there was an advantage and I backed it up. If you want a comprehensive argument for the existence of God, present a thoroughgoing argument showing that the existence of God is impossible. Maybe you will persuade me. If not, I’ll try to refute it. Otherwise, piecemeal arguments are all that is warranted in my opinion.