Nature is a crude instrument of retribution; it often smites hardest those that have sinned least. The argument may succeed in casting some doubt on the supposition that a good God would eliminate all suffering; God’s benevolence and his justice may exist in tension, and a benevolent God may sometimes will just punishment. It does not, however, explain the unequal distribution of natural evil that we observe. The notion of natural evil: http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...oblem-of-evil/the-argument-from-natural-evil/ If God isn't omniscient, can we still call he God?mufc:
What is YOUR evidence for sentence #1? IMPO, "Nature" is the sum of all God's material creations - neither good nor evil - there is no willful or intended retribution . . . only nature being nature . . . . . and we happen to be a part of it (nature). Retribution is "in the eye of the beholder", albeit, humans seem to have a knack for exercising forceful retribution when they are not particularly pleased with their lot in life.
dealt with in detail in another thread In short : A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good. Vedic philosophy has three contributions to make here. 1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature. 2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil). 3) The medium of our bondage is our own desire. Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good. In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.
Good and evil do not exist. It is simply an illusion of the mind to try and make sense of what happens to it. All of the "evil" in this world can be traced back to our own minds. Only our minds are so good at lying that we don't even see this fact. Anger, jealousy, fear, and sadness, are all created by the mind. There is another fact to consider. That we are not our minds. How can this be proven? It's simple. Anytime you think something, a thought usually takes the form of words, images or feelings, often a combination of those three. They are created by the mind but what listens? What is it that experiences them? The first though is that it is the mind listening to itself but that can't be, why would the brain waste valuable energy explaining things to itself? It is completely impractical and inefficient, it is not how nature works. The only answer that makes sense is that it is not the mind it is relaying information to. It is something else. One could call it consciousness or the soul. That is what we really are. We are not our minds or bodies but our consciousness or soul. You don't have to be religious to understand this concept. And it won't hurt you to learn more and trust me there is so much more to this truth. So I ask anyone reading this, no matter who you are, to go to this site: www.truthcontest.com And go to the entry "The Present" there is also "The Present (with religion)" I recommend reading both whether you are religious or not, but it is not necessary. Just reading the first will be more than enough. Thank you all for your time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The eruption of Mount Vesuvius buried Pompeii city, this is an example of Natural Evil. No men had any guilt. Smallpox was another example. I conclude God isn't omniscient, because he can stop nature punishes innocent, immaculate people (specially children). Is not omniscience the first condition for omnipotency/omnipresence?. Sagan thinks that an immortal creator who creates mortal creatures is by definition: � a cruel god� If He�s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death.� (p. 29). However, the only way to provide essentially embodied intelligences with immortality without fear of physical death is to create them in an environment inimical to the full exercise of free will. In syllogistic form: 1.If intelligent life is commonplace in the universe then, given the way the universe works (quasar explossions, meteors..), intelligent life must get routinely obliterated 2.Intelligent life is commonplace in the universe 3.Therefore, intelligent life must get routinely obliterated 4.If God were all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good, then intelligent life would not get routinely obliterated 5.Therefore, God cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good
