Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Trailblazer]

“God is the original source but not the cause of everything in the universe so God is not the ultimate source.”

That certainly allows you a loophole to excuse God for the bad stuff that happens.

God never needs any excuses because an Infallible God is incapable of making any mistakes.

So if God is omniscient and the original creator then it must be aware of the other sources of creation in the universe, and certainly created those as well, yes?

That is true. There are many worlds of God, and only God is aware of them.

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured.” Gleanings, pp. 152-153

So given the definitions of omniscient and omnipotent you still create a scenario where God is still accountable for all that happens. And benevolent just doesn't fit. I'm not sure what "perfectly benevolent" is supposed to mean, but it's even less relevant.

No, God is not accountable to ANY human for ANYTHING. It is rather we who are accountable to God.

You can't escape the succession of causes ending up at God's doorstep. You want to ignore this succession of causes but everyone else knows it all goes back to what your God decided as it created the world.

There is nothing on God’s doorstep because God is not accountable to or responsible for ANYTHING that happens to humans. All that we get from God is only by His grace and mercy. God could dispense with all of us in a heartbeat. The only reason God does not do so is because God created us out of love.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

The more fuzzy the definitions the easier it gets for theists. Theists want ambiguity, confusion, uncertainty, etc. so their claims can exist in a fog. This is a trick that doesn't work against thinkers.

That is what atheists do when they cannot respond to what I say, they obfuscate.

Again, what people consider evil and good is highly subjective, but it is not subjective to God, as God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil and God prohibits evil acts in His Laws. If everyone obeyed God’s Laws there would be no evil in the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since your God is perfect and does not make mistakes it must have intended for cancers to develop through time in order for the creation to be exactly what it wants.

God did not intend for cancers to develop although He knew they would develop and allowed them to develop.

If the world is NOT what God wants, why did it fail to create what it wanted as a perfect being?

God does not want anything for Himself because God does not need anything. Everything in creation was created for humans..

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

So since you admit that God could have created a world without cancers developing, yet it didn't, And since you admit we cannot know the reason God did this, then that means we can't know that God is benevolent. You might want God to be benevolent, and you might want to believe the texts you read, but the facts offset all this. And given you aren't certain of the reasons God created a world where exceptionally painful and deadly cancers develop, you cannot dismiss the possibility it is due to cruelty.

I do not care if you or anyone else knows if God is benevolent, I know that God is benevolent because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote. I do not base my beliefs in God on whether I like what I see in the world because I am not a judge of anything.

“Be fair to yourselves and to others, that the evidences of justice may be revealed, through your deeds, among Our faithful servants. Beware lest ye encroach upon the substance of your neighbor. Prove yourselves worthy of his trust and confidence in you, and withhold not from the poor the gifts which the grace of God hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

You will certainly WANT to dismiss it, but we are being logical here, not listening to your emotions and what you want God to be.

That is exactly what you are doing, listening to your emotions and asserting what you want God to be if He is going to measure up to your expectations. I listen to Baha'u'llah, not to my emotions.

Who cares that cancers might be cured? The question is why they exist at all in a world that a supposedly benevolent god made. The advances in science were a response to the exceptionally harsh and deadly nature that humans exist in. And this nature is what God created. If there is some reason for all the suffering, death, disabilities, then the world seems more designed by Rube Goldberg than a perfect God.

People who care about people care if cancers will be cured and I care if cancers are cured because I care about people, and the only way they will be cured is by humans working together to find a cure. They are certainly not going to be cured by people who sit around blaming God for how He created the world. If everyone did that nothing would ever get done.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because if God actualizes suffering that isn't beneficial, then we're back to the problem that it isn't benevolent. This whole side chapter on whether suffering is beneficial is meant to excuse why God might cause suffering in the world, right? All it takes is one instance of suffering that isn't beneficial to make a contradiction with omnibenevolence.

Only one instance of suffering to make a contradiction with omnibenevolence? I am not going down that all or nothing road, sorry. It is too illogical. Besides, I never said I believe that God is omnibenevolent. I only believe that God is benevolent, because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Be fair to yourselves and to others, that the evidences of justice may be revealed, through your deeds, among Our faithful servants. Beware lest ye encroach upon the substance of your neighbor. Prove yourselves worthy of his trust and confidence in you, and withhold not from the poor the gifts which the grace of God hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

First of all, I'm sorry that you went through all of that. I wish the best for you and yours, and I'm hesitant to make arguments in the light of this heartfelt story. I feel like it would be wrong of me to make points and say things about all of this that would be close to home.

I guess there is one point I feel comfortable making: Joe Biden may be successful after suffering much; but there are many people that just suffer. There are many people that are successful without suffering greatly. I don't think it's a great argument to point out singular examples where someone has suffered and succeeded because there will probably be more counter-examples.

It is no doubt true that there will be as many counter-examples, but even if those people do not succeed in life that does not mean that they don’t benefit from their suffering. Moreover, even if they are unhappy now and say there is no benefit they might realize that benefit after they die. I have suffered greatly but I do not expect to see that much benefit until after I die.

Secondly, I'll say that I don't "hate God." I don't believe in God, I can't hate a thing that I don't believe in. I think the existence of suffering is already explained by the universe ultimately not caring whether we suffer or not; I think it's just up to us to abolish as much suffering as we can. None of this involves "hating God." The PoE and similar arguments are just academic arguments about how some conceptions of God are internally inconsistent. That's all. The PoE doesn't even apply if someone just says "ok, sometimes God makes someone suffer once in a while." Or "ok, maybe God's power or knowledge has some limits beyond just logical possibility." These things make the PoE a moot point, for instance; because the PoE wouldn't apply in those instances.

I believe in God but I also believe it is up to humans to abolish as much suffering as we can, and that is what the Baha’i Faith teaches.

God is not constrained by logic as God is infinite, so that is why what you believe is a logical argument won’t ever fly.

I made a post where I covered how such a world is possible, and how we can know it is. Omnipotence isn't usually defined as the capacity to do anything, but rather the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Creating a world without physical suffering is logically possible; so an omnipotent and omniscient being could do it. I cover how we can know this is possible in my Toy Worlds and the Problem of Evil thread.

No, you do not know that such a world is possible just because God is omnipotent because you don’t even know what that means. God is far beyond the understanding of humans and operates outside of logic.

We don't have to be able to hurt each other to have free will. If we attempted to attack one another and an invisible wall stopped us, we'd still be free. We'd still be able to wake up in the morning, decide what we want to do today. Who we want to spend the day with. What new knowledge we want to pursue. What kind of work we'd like to do, all of this. There is nothing about free will that necessitates the ability to physically harm one another.

Consider also that we already aren't capable of doing some things. I can't walk on the underneath of clouds or teleport to Andromeda: does this make me not free? Of course I'm still free despite lacking some abilities. Lacking the ability to physically hurt each other is the same: we would still be free if we couldn't do it.

As long as humans have free will they are free to choose between good and evil and some people that will harm each other. I am sorry, I am not into fantasies like invisible walls to prevent people from doing what they are responsible to prevent themselves from doing. I am into reality, and the reality is that if everyone followed God’s laws there would be no evil. It you like fantasies maybe you should be posting to Christians who believe they will rise from the grave and live forever in a new earth that will be like the Garden of Eden.

You may not have read my other response yet, but I will be clear: I am only talking about physical suffering when I'm saying God is culpable for it. God isn't culpable for mental suffering (such as if we are a jerk to our friends, so our friends leave us) because that doesn't rely on the physics of the world that God is responsible for, that only relies on our minds.

It is false that if physical bodies exist there must exist physical suffering: an omnipotent and omniscient being could make physical bodies with physics set up in such a way that they do not suffer.

As long as physical bodies exist there will be physical suffering. There is not some other kind of physical body God could create that would not be subject to physical suffering. Physical bodies are subject to decomposition because they are comprised of physical elements that perish. If our physical bodies were not perishable we would live forever on this earth, but that is not what God intended for us. God intended for us to pass to a spiritual world when we die physically, where there will be no more physical pain or suffering.

Why would you even want a physical body when you could have a spiritual body comprised of spiritual elements? Most Christians believe that they will have a glorified physical body that will also be spiritual so they will still be able to eat and drink and have sex after they die physically. This is a complete fantasy and the Bible does not say that anywhere. The Bible says that after we die we will be raised in a spiritual body, which is exactly what Baha’is believe we will have in the spiritual world after we cast off this physical body.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

 

[Koldo]

I did not say I don't see that. What is your point?

Great. Then if you see that, how can anyone call any of that beneficial?

 

[Koldo]

How do you know that the good can be gained in some other way, without the bad part?

Generally speaking, depending on the situation, it could be realllly tricky. HOWEVER, since God is omnipotent, this becomes entirely trivial.

Think of it this way: Whatever is conceivable can be done with omnipotence.

A simple frame of reference: We need needles to inject vaccines, but needles often cause pain. Is it possible to imagine a way to make someone immune to a disease without making use of a needle? Yes, it is. Actually, it is even possible for people to be born immune to many diseases, as research has shown.

Tell me anything good that can only come from something bad and I will show you how mistaken you are.

 

[Koldo]

Only one instance of suffering to make a contradiction with omnibenevolence? I am not going down that all or nothing road, sorry. It is too illogical. Besides, I never said I believe that God is omnibenevolent. I only believe that God is benevolent, because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Be fair to yourselves and to others, that the evidences of justice may be revealed, through your deeds, among Our faithful servants. Beware lest ye encroach upon the substance of your neighbor. Prove yourselves worthy of his trust and confidence in you, and withhold not from the poor the gifts which the grace of God hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

What does it mean to claim that God is benevolent but not omnibenevolent?

God is not constrained by logic as God is infinite, so that is why what you believe is a logical argument won’t ever fly.

No, you do not know that such a world is possible just because God is omnipotent because you don’t even know what that means. God is far beyond the understanding of humans and operates outside of logic.

What does omnipotence mean if not the power to actualize any conceivable state of affairs? That's the utmost power.

If you tell me that God can't actualize any state of affairs he wants whenever he wants then I certainly wouldn't call him omnipotent, and therefore the problem of evil wouldn't apply to him.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I was not comparing the ice cream with the serious problems in the world.

Saying it three times doesn't make it true, especially when you demonstrably did compare the two, and continue to do so.

God does not kill anyone.

Except for Noah's Flood, the Tenth Plague of Egypt, Routing the Egyptian Army, Closing the Red Sea, Sodom and Gomorrah, Job's Family...

All those problems that humanity faces are human problems for which humans are responsible.

Explain how humans are responsible for flaws inherent in our biological design, diseases and deformities, and a hundred other major issues that cannot be fixed. And if your god cannot fix these things, or inexplicably "didn't create them" when he was creating everything else, then your god is not Omnipotent. If he can fix them, but won't, then he is not Omnibenevolent. You taking up the mantle of Teresa Bojaxhiu doesn't make it better or acceptable.

The more fuzzy the definitions the easier it gets for theists. Theists want ambiguity, confusion, uncertainty, etc. so their claims can exist in a fog. This is a trick that doesn't work against thinkers.

Not all theists, if you could. Many of us are deep thinkers as well, and don't enjoy ambiguity in the slightest.

 

[F1fan]

I never claimed that it was kind. It is neither cruel nor kind, Imo.

I asked you if it was kind that God created a world where cancers would develop, and you answered YES. It's part of the record.

So I want you to expand on that. You said yes, it was kind that the God created a world that developed cancers, and I want to know what is kind about that.

God could have made a world where cancers do not develop.

So since god decided that cancers were to be part of the world, and you can''t know the reasons for it, what makes you think God is benevolent?

 

[F1fan]

God never needs any excuses because an Infallible God is incapable of making any mistakes.

Then given the fact that cancers and other nasty things like flesh eating bacteria that God decided to allow to develop, AND you say we can't know why these were allowed, THEN you can't claim any confidence that God is benevolent.

I know you want to slap that label on God, but the facts we observe, and the lack of knowing what God is up to as far as reasons (your claim), doesn't justify that.

Frankly I don't know why that's so important to you. Is it because Baha’u’llah says so?

That is true. There are many worlds of God, and only God is aware of them.

Ah, a new claim and twist. Well since we have no way to know if this is true or not we throw it out.

No, God is not accountable to ANY human for ANYTHING. It is rather we who are accountable to God.

So the child dying from leukemia is accountable to God. Explain how that's is how it has to be, and how this isn't even more cruelty.

There is nothing on God’s doorstep because God is not accountable to or responsible for ANYTHING that happens to humans. All that we get from God is only by His grace and mercy. God could dispense with all of us in a heartbeat. The only reason God does not do so is because God created us out of love.

Sorry, when you say God is the creator, and it knows all, and has the power to create a world without cancers, it ALL falls on God's doorstep. It's too late for you to deny this. You've described God as THE reason why cancers developed. And you admit we can't know the reason why God did this.

You don't like it. I'm sorry, but you've already put the pieces together for us to conclude that God can't be claimed to be benevolent. Maybe it is, but you certainly can't claim that it is via logic.

Again, what people consider evil and good is highly subjective, but it is not subjective to God, as God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil and God prohibits evil acts in His Laws. If everyone obeyed God’s Laws there would be no evil in the world.

So here again you suggest we mortals can't know what God does. That means we can't say God is benevolent or malevolent. Your personal belief and opinion is irrelevant. You are trying to convince us that God is benevolent by your texts and what we observe.

However what you claim, including how little we know about God, we can't take your texts at face value and agree with you. Baha’u’llah was a human and not a God so could be in error. You're a believer, heavily invested emotionally, and biased. We aren't so we have the freedom to look at this more objectively. So is it possible you could be mistaken?

 

[viole]

Again, what people consider evil and good is highly subjective, but it is not subjective to God, as God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil and God prohibits evil acts in His Laws. If everyone obeyed God’s Laws there would be no evil in the world.

Ergo, allowing little children to get bone cancer and die, is good. Same thing with Tsunamis killing 250,000 people at once. Or, if it is not good, it is highly subjective, right? Have you ever told a mother who just lost his little kids that what happened is only subjectively bad?

I personally think that any omni-divinity who allows little kids to suffer and die, while could prevent that immediately, is not existing. And that is the only valid excuse He really has.

Ciao

- viole

 

[F1fan]

Explain how humans are responsible for flaws inherent in our biological design, diseases and deformities, and a hundred other major issues that cannot be fixed. And if your god cannot fix these things, or inexplicably "didn't create them" when he was creating everything else, then your god is not Omnipotent. If he can fix them, but won't, then he is not Omnibenevolent. You taking up the mantle of Teresa Bojaxhiu doesn't make it better or acceptable.

This is an ongoing question that has not been answered. Plus Tb already admitted that God could have created the world without cancers, so that it was aware, and that it allowed cancers to develop knowing they would, there is a reason God allowed this, and this implies intention. What excuse can be made?

Not all theists, if you could. Many of us are deep thinkers as well, and don't enjoy ambiguity in the slightest.

I stand corrected.

 

[F1fan]

Ergo, allowing little children to get bone cancer and die, is good. Same thing with Tsunamis killing 250,000 people at once. Or, if it is not good, it is highly subjective, right? Have you ever told a mother who just lost his little kids that what happened is only subjectively bad?

I personally think that any omni-divinity who allows little kids to suffer and die, while could prevent that immediately, is not existing. And that is the only valid excuse He really has.

Ciao

- viole

The problem for theists is that they have to describe and define their God on the facts of what we observe of the world. Tb bases her belief on Baha’u’llah, yet there are serious discrepancies with these texts and beliefs that just don't add up.

 

[viole]

The problem for theists is that they have to describe and define their God on the facts of what we observe of the world. Tb bases her belief on Baha’u’llah, yet there are serious discrepancies with these texts and beliefs that just don't add up.

What else have they got? There is no real escape but declaring that God knows better, and be happy with that, even when confronted with things that look totally counterfactual, if an omni-benevolent God really existed. In other words, they have nothing else but to trust God, and stop thinking about it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know that the good can be gained in some other way, without the bad part?

Because we know that what has been done can be done.

Could God eradicated smallpox? Humans did, so any god worth its salt would be able to eradicate smallpox, too.

... which leads to a question: if God could have done it, why didn't he?

 

[Trailblazer]

Except for Noah's Flood, the Tenth Plague of Egypt, Routing the Egyptian Army, Closing the Red Sea, Sodom and Gomorrah, Job's Family...

Believe as you wish, but I do not believe any of those events ever occurred.

Explain how humans are responsible for flaws inherent in our biological design, diseases and deformities, and a hundred other major issues that cannot be fixed.

I never said that humans are responsible for what they are born with or diseases they acquire later in life. Humans are only responsible for their moral choices.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And if your god cannot fix these things, or inexplicably "didn't create them" when he was creating everything else, then your god is not Omnipotent. If he can fix them, but won't, then he is not Omnibenevolent. You taking up the mantle of Teresa Bojaxhiu doesn't make it better or acceptable.

God cannot make mistakes because God is infallible, so there is no need for God to fix what He created. Just because God does not do what you want him to does not mean God is not benevolent. That is what the ice cream flavors thing was all about. "Mommy, mommy, I want chocolate ice cream, not vanilla" (So you won't miss it this time, you are expecting God to fix the world just because YOU don't like it. Grow up and accept reality.)

 

[Trailblazer]

Great. Then if you see that, how can anyone call any of that beneficial?

Any of what? I do not have time to backtrack and read previous posts. What do you think is not beneficial?

 

[F1fan]

Because we know that what has been done can be done.

Could God eradicated smallpox? Humans did, so any god worth its salt would be able to eradicate smallpox, too.

... which leads to a question: if God could have done it, why didn't he?

The thinking goes that since god created the world and that world includes smallpox and since god doesn’t make mistakes that there was a reason for it. And since god is benevolent the reason must be good but we limited mortals can’t understand what it is that’s good.

how is it good that we are confused?

we might as well just examine what facts we do have and assess things to the most probable option. To my mind its that we live a lottery of life in a universe that has no direction and certainly has no concerns anoit suffering. This counters what many theists want to believe but thats too bad.

the irony is that the emotional distress they experience isnt soothed by a god showing up for them. More lottery wins and losses.

 

[Trailblazer]

Generally speaking, depending on the situation, it could be realllly tricky. HOWEVER, since God is omnipotent, this becomes entirely trivial.

Think of it this way: Whatever is conceivable can be done with omnipotence.

A simple frame of reference: We need needles to inject vaccines, but needles often cause pain. Is it possible to imagine a way to make someone immune to a disease without making use of a needle? Yes, it is. Actually, it is even possible for people to be born immune to many diseases, as research has shown.

Tell me anything good that can only come from something bad and I will show you how mistaken you are.

Sorry, I am not going down the road called "God can do anything because God is omnipotent."
Just because God can do anything that does not mean God will or should do anything humans want Him to do...
God is not a short order cook.

Omnipotence implies that God only does what God chooses to do, not what people want or expect Him to do. That is logic 101, but in order to make it perfectly clear...

Omnipotence implies ability but it also implies that God only uses that ability as He chooses to, NOT as you want Him to. The following verses explain what omnipotence implies, in a nutshell:

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest.He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, p, 284

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73

for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will.

· That means God has complete power and He does whatever He chooses to do, which implies that He is not going to do what you think He should do or what you want Him to do, unless He chooses to do it.

He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain.

· That means you have no right to question what God ordains. It is what it is and you cannot change it.

To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish.

· That means if God feels like giving you something you will get it but if not you won’t.

 

[Trailblazer]

What does it mean to claim that God is benevolent but not omnibenevolent?

Omnibenevolent: (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=omnibenevolent+means

Benevolent: well meaning and kindly.
https://www.google.com/search?q=benevolent+means

What does omnipotence mean if not the power to actualize any conceivable state of affairs? That's the utmost power.

If you tell me that God can't actualize any state of affairs he wants whenever he wants then I certainly wouldn't call him omnipotent, and therefore the problem of evil wouldn't apply to him.

"actualize any state of affairs he wants whenever he wants"

God can do whatever He chooses but God does an omnipotent God only does what he chooses to do..
God does not do what people want or expect Him to do. God is not a short order cook.
This is what flies right over the head of atheists that say that God "can do anything."

 

[Trailblazer]

I personally think that any omni-divinity who allows little kids to suffer and die, while could prevent that immediately, is not existing. And that is the only valid excuse He really has.

Atheists love to say that God is omnipotent but they omit that He is also omniscient.
What that means is that God knows more than any human, so God knows the best course of action under any circumstance.
God is also infallible so God is INCAPABLE of making mistakes.

God does not need to make excuses to humans for what He doesn't do because God is not accountable to any human.
Everything that humans get from God is only by the grace and mercy and bounty of God.

Any god that would come swooping down and fix everything in the world that atheists don't like is not existing.
Grow up and accept reality. God is not Superman.