INSTEAD OF BEING SO SURE NATURAL EVIL DOES NOT REFUTE GOD RELIGION SHOULD SAY
"MAYBE IT DOES!"
The free will defence says that God is all good so evil comes from us having
abused our power to line up with God or rebel.
However, most innocent suffering has nothing to do with human activity. Nature
hurts. Babies die in plagues. Religion however insists that God can be pure love
and let that happen for it is only natural evil. Evil is blamed on human beings
abusing God's gift of free will to hurt others.
This is a challenge to how religion thinks it has the right to be so sure that
natural evil cannot really refute God's love for it is not truly evil. We will
learn it has no right and has no business bringing arrogance into something so
serious.
First
Natural evil is evil that just happens and nobody does it. It is not evil in the
way somebody deliberately hitting you is. The latter is moral evil.
The admission
The god believers have to admit that it is at least possible that that
non-chosen or non-caused-by-free-agents evil disproves the love of God.
If the problem of natural evil could disprove the love of God or the free will
defence then why?
* Because it is suffering.
Who cares if evil people are happy and do not suffer as long as they do not harm
anybody? We have to punish because of the world we live in, we need to try and
stop evil using punishment, but it is pity we have to. God does not have to
punish anybody. God does not have to discipline anybody. To disagree is just to
wish for your pound of flesh.
It is insane to say it is wrong for a scientist to build a machine to cause
volcanoes and it is okay for God to do it. That denies that the action is just
bad in itself regardless of any consequences. It is insulting and misanthropic
and unfair. And if the reason it is okay for God to do it is because he is
bringing benefits out of it then what? Then the scientist can do it as well so
that is not a reason. And what if the scientist is God's instrument? Then the
scientist doing it is the same as God doing it. A god like that who is not a
moral agent is not a god we can connect with. It would be evil to offer a God
like that and then excuse his role in natural evil. And even if there is a God
it does not follow that the God you adore is him for to adore your image of God
is to adore your image of God not God. That is what you are saying allows
natural evil! Human nature is so eager to adore copies of God that if you want
to be found innocent of condoning natural evil so selfishly and for your
self-made God you have to go to big lengths to prove it. The matter is that
serious!
What right has man to say it is different for God to do earthquakes and plagues?
Even God cannot say it without proving it for it is a proving matter!! It is
easy for man to say it and that is why it is so terrible to say it. So much for
the Christian doctrine that God is daddy and servant!!
* Because it is undeserved suffering? This suggestion stands out as spiteful for
it insinuates that if natural evil caused deserved suffering there would be no
problem with it! It amounts to saying an earthquake is a good thing if it hurts
those who deserve it. Wanting the wicked to be judged and put in prison is
dignity. Wanting them to be caught up in a volcano just because they deserve it
and will get what they deserve is not.
The alternative then is to say that natural evil is not about what you deserve
or don't deserve. God does not consider that when setting it up. But a God who
gives you what you deserve or one that hurts you as you do not deserve is not an
indifferent God. He cares enough if he is going to be spiteful. You deserve to
be thought of as a deserving person if nothing else. So if he does not care
about your dignity as a deserving person he is worse than a bad God. He is
indifferent and cold.
* Because any good comes not because of it but in spite of it. It is just wholly
inexcusable - period! This excuse is terrible and unfeeling. The good coming
about in spite of the natural evil has nothing nothing at all to do with making
it even a little good. A PERSON CAN BE GLAD THE GOOD RATHER THAN JUST COMING
COMES IN SPITE OF EVIL. IN OTHER WORDS THEY ARE GLAD THE EVIL WAS THE WAY IT WAS
DONE FOR THEY ARE GLAD THE EVIL WAS DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE! BEING GLAD THAT
JOHN GOT A MILLION POUNDS FOR LOSING HIS ARM IS VINDICTIVE WHEN IT ENTAILS BEING
GLAD HE DIDN'T JUST WIN IT.
* Because evil has to happen after we do evil for we must experience and get the
natural and bad consequences of our evil. TRANSLATION: WE CREATE THE BAD
RESULTS. BUT WE DO NOT. THEY JUST FOLLOW. GOD CREATES THEM IF ANYBODY DOES. IF
GOD JUST STOPPED HOLDING THINGS IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW YOU WOULD NEVER FACE THE
RESULTS. IT'S A NASTY UNSYMPATHETIC DOCTRINE.
* Because a God who sends earthquakes and viruses to torment people against
their will can hardly claim to allow evil to happen because he wants to respect
people’s freedom to do evil? TRANSLATION: IF EVIL IS OKAY AS LONG AS NO PERSON
IS DOING IT THEN EVIL DOES NOT MATTER SO WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF A
PERSON DOES IT. EVIL DOES NOT BECOME EVIL JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS DOING IT. TO
SAY DIFFERENT IS MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION.
* Because it makes no sense to say that evil is a side-effect of the gift of
free will and not from God when God does and sends natural evil. Religion has no
explanation as to how free will can be to blame for evil when there is evil that
is not down to free will. It just ignores the problem and that is evil in
itself.
* Because moral evil cannot be possible unless natural evil exists. So for that
reason natural evil is worse than moral evil. TRANSLATION: WHAT OPENS THE DOOR
TO EVIL IS WORSE THAN ANY EVIL IN PRINCIPLE. AN EVIL CAN BE LESS BAD THAN YOU
EXPECT BUT OPENING THE DOOR MEANS ANYTHING HOWEVER TERRIBLE CAN HAPPEN. IF
NATURAL EVIL IS BETTER THAN MORAL EVIL THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE. IT MAKES MORAL
EVIL POSSIBLE AND SETS THE STAGE FOR IT. SO IT IS AS BAD IF NOT WORSE.
* Because the notion that natural evil is remote from the creator and not
directly caused by him is nonsense though it is basic to the argument that an
all-good God cannot harm. It contradicts the doctrine that God causes all things
out of nothing and things return to nothing if he withdraws his creative power.
There is no indirect strictly speaking. Everything is a miracle. The doctrine
that God does not directly do harm is incoherent and ridiculous and insincere.
TRANSLATION: THE UNIVERSE IS DIRECTLY CREATED BY GOD MEANING THAT ALL THAT
HAPPENS IN IT IS DIRECTLY CREATED TOO. IF YOU DIRECT GREEN PAINT AT A DOOR AND
KNOW THE HANDLE IS THERE AND SPRAY IT ANYWAY YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE HANDLE
SHOULD NOT BE PAINTED SO IT WAS INDIRECTLY PAINTED.
Therefore the natural evil refutes God argument is 100% correct.