The Answer

[kisc]

Pretty commonly, folks ask questions like "how can you believe in a god that would allow X to happen?" I've stumbled across this answer a few times, but pretty commonly forget. I'm not clear why I forget every other year or so

Comments

[ruthanolis]

Maybe I'm an arsehole [except not so much on the maybe I think], but my favourite answer was always, 'If there is no God, how can you let X happen?'

It usually comes down to either, 'I didn't know' which is a cop out, or 'I didn't make them', which is another cop out, but brings up the issue of free agency. The question is usually meant in a mean manner, so all you have to do is throw it back on them, and make them respond to their own question.

Of course, if you want to be a real arsehole, the answer becomes, 'Whether or not God exists, how can you let X continue to occur?'

All that aside, I'm pretty sure most people realise the actual answer, they are just wanting to be arseholes. >_>

[masinkie]

You're right, of course, the reason I let cancer happen is because I'm a total raving asshole.

Or it could be that I don't have the power to stop cancer, HIV, Genocide, mass layoffs.

Of course, if I were an omnipotent creator of the universe with the ability to end cancer/hiv/genocide/mass layoffs/american idol with a snap of my fingers, my unwillingness to would make me quite the asshole.

If your spouse/parent/child made you suffer (say, by infecting you with HIV, killing your dog, burning down your house) and then stand there saying "I made you suffer because it means more if you love me after I purposely harm you." would you then say "you are a kind and loving spouse/parent/child"? or "You monster, how could you do that as some kind of bullshit TEST?"

If you want to make up some kind of beautiful lie about why we can still be petty, cruel, and shallow, then at least make one that's beautiful, and doesn't attribute mental illness to god.

[ruthanolis]

Wow ... I'm not sure what to say. You've taken one statement, the last one, totally out of context, and then ignored everything else that was said.

I can do that as well.

"I'm a total raving asshole."
That totally aside, here was my point

[lonelocust]

If it was easy, then anyone could do it, so it has to be hard. And yet, more people believe than disbelieve

[ruthanolis]

Belief or non-belief in God doesn't come into it. Reread what I've said.

If God exists, there is a reason why he wouldn't change things.
If God doesn't exist, then the question is moot.

The real question people don't want to ask/answer is, 'Whether or not God/s exist/s, why aren't you doing something in an attempt to change the bad things that happen?'

On the other topic you raised: To be totally honest, I don't consider anyone else's beliefs [on any topic] to be wrong, unless they impact negatively with society. I don't know them, nor their lives.

And my beliefs don't exactly gel with what other's I know believe. Maybe they are further ahead than I am, maybe it's me who is more advanced.

But nobody's belief is wrong simply because it is different to mine. I'm not that egocentric or arrogant.

[lonelocust]

Sorry, I was not responding to you. I meant to hit Reply to the original post rather than to your comment. I was responding to Kisc. Kisc put forth that believing in God is hard and therefore means more because if it wasn't hard everyone could do it. I am responding to the seeming implication that believing is more difficult than not believing.

Additionally, I find your reasoning highly flawed. However, since you made it clear that you don't respect people's questioning of that reasoning with your statement that "People ask the question... simply because they want to be arseholes. Not because they believe they know better, but because they feel they have no other recourse in their argument bar making low blows." I did not make a response to your comments. I apologise for incorrectly clicking reply so it appeared that I was responding to you.

[ruthanolis]

I fear the few interactions with that questions have led me to believe it's the refuge of those who can't hold their argument any other way.
I honestly don't care if you believe or not. Asking a god or who may or may not exist to remove all the ills of the world strikes me as a lazy, arrogant and foolhardy option.

That said, to me anywa, believing is easy. Following through on that belief is hard. Perhaps that is to what Kisc was referring?

I should also apologise. It just appeared too odd an 'attack' to make on my comment to let it slide.

[kisc]

Compared to believing, doing is indeed more difficult, but that wasn't the premise of my OP.

[lonelocust]

I don't really see how "Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and merciful god allow these things?" is a low blow, or why it needs to be thrown out or reduced to the point where someone needs to "hold their argument any other way". Could you explain that

[ruthanolis]

The only times I've ever heard that question asked, outside of the curiousity/naivete that comes from a serious and deep thinking child, has been by seeming militant atheists trying to stamp out the belief of others. Usually followed by the claim that it is definitive proof of the lack of existence of one or more deities and that atheism is the only real/logical belief system. It's a coup de grace for them, not an opening of discussion

[lonelocust]

You should be aware that your dismissal of the question as childish or assholeish doesn't give the impression that you are willing to have a discussion

[ruthanolis]

That was part of my point. Why should the existence of God change just what we ourselves are doing? Even if we could prove the existence of God, should we stop trying to make those changes? Why should our humanity rely upon the existence or non-existence of a deity?
In the end, it's possible that the only God man has is man himself. But if that isn't true and there is a being out there, it doesn't mean we should stop and wait for them to do everything.

As for a seeming willingness/unwillingness to discuss, in my experience, the entire question is based around belittling someone's belief in God. Not in eliciting discussion. Simply because it's not used as a fair question.
As a side note, I never claimed I wasn't an arsehole because I framed a 'better' question - I am unquestionably so, simply for rephrasing their question and tossing it back at them. It doesn't change the nature of the question, just the nature of the target.

[lonelocust]

It absolutely changes the nature of the question. One question is about whether a specific sort of god exists, and the other is about how we should live our lives. "Who cares, let's be good people!" is a great way to live, but is irrelevant to a discussion of the reasoning people have for believing or not believing in a deity. It's not a rephrasing of the question; it is a totally different topic.

[ruthanolis]

I see the questions as the same. You see them as different. Perhaps from our differing beliefs, perhaps from some error in communication. And I do believe we've already seen some recursion in the discussion.

[lonelocust]

Let me try one more time to clarify, and if you could clarify why you think they are the same, that would be great. There are two base questions at work here

[ruthanolis]

I find that those two 'base' questions aren't all that necessary. Question A isn't asked from a point of wanting to know, but asked from a position of 'I know God doesn't exist, so let's see how you like this question!' In my experience it makes the assumption that the person being asked isn't willing to work or is some sort of sheep. It's an attempt to belittle someone.
Question B is asked in a similar manner - the difference being that it's more direct and honest about what it is stating. It is also important to add, 'Whether or not God exists' to the start, as it can make it more obvious that it's a moot point for the question.
I personally find questions A & B only barely related to questions 1 & 2. There is a relationship there, but it is not what the questions A & B are based on. I don't believe I ever stated that questions B & 1 connected logically.