If you believe in the G-d of the Bible this is totally logical to have bad stuff, in fact, necessary...so only people who have never read the Bible could make this ASSUMPTION that bad stuff proves no G-d...you'd have to make up your own idea of a G-d that doesn't allow/make bad stuff..which isn't Bible G-d.
2006-11-04 14:22:47 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You already answered it but I agree.You can not debate if you are uneducated in the matter.
2006-11-04 14:26:15 · answer #1 · answered by Piper 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never heard anyone say "bad stuff" happening proves there is no god. There's so many other more logical reasons why someone would come to that conclusion, but that's not the point. The only thing I've heard said along these lines is that "bad stuff" happening proves there is no "just" god. And that any deity who can callously watch his followers suffer isn't worth worshipping.
2006-11-04 15:01:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it logical? Why is it necessary that we have two World Wars? The Holocaust? 9/11? The Black Plague? AIDS?
The problem lies in the fact that Christians always claim that God interferes in worldly affairs for GOOD reasons ("miracles") so why doesn't he do the same to stop "bad stuff" from happening? Why does he do one and not the other?
It's not consistent. On one hand, God has left everything up to us. It's our planet and all the decisions are ours to decide. So things like 9/11 aren't his fault; it's our fault. But on the other hand, something amazing happens, like people are spared from a horrific accident or something. You always hear, "That must have been God's doing!" Something doesn't add up in all this.
2006-11-04 14:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The mere existence of evil in this world makes the existence of a benign god impossible: If god were omnipotent, he could eliminate evil and if he were benign, he would want to do so. Furthermore, if god were all-good, as he is supposed to be, he could not sin. However, if he were all-powerful, he could sin.
If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.
Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.
Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.
Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent.
2006-11-04 14:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because people fail to take free will into account and prefer to blaim God as opposed to taking some of the responsibility upon themselves.
2006-11-04 14:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know. from what i have seen, most "bad stuff" has a purpose. apparently some people expect G-d to bail them out of every single bit of trouble that we humans create for ourselves, otherwise G-d can't be "good"
2006-11-04 14:32:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
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?
-Epicurus
2006-11-04 14:34:15 · answer #7 · answered by Moo i'm a cow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋