Surely the world we live in proves there is no [loving] God.

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that is true only to a degree. In a glass half full or half empty situation. But when your glass is almost empty it is hard to pretend it's nearly full.

Yeah, okay. Whatever. I'm tired of talking about this.

Edit: Don't mean to come off as mean. I have a sinus headache and I feel like crap.

 

[suzy smith]

But it does address your question though. It counters your objection in a logical manner. That was the point.

I don't believe in anything that is illogical and I challenge you to refute that.

To refute that would be to open up a whole new debate on proving religion is wrong.
Have you got a few spare years to discuss the bible, evolution and many other relevant subjects.
So I happily pass on that one and you can make what you want from that.

 

[George-ananda]

Good morning to you.

Well I am new here so its not ‘the same old debate’ to me.

Good point. I apologize.

You are obviously of a higher intelligence than most of us but could you please make allowances for a simple woman like me?

I don't have high intelligence and I don't think you're simple.

 

[sinner]

"Depends on your concept of love. __________________
"Perhaps you were expecting some surprise, for me to reveal a secret that had eluded you, something that would change your perspective of events, shatter you to your core. There is no great revelation, no great secret. There is only you." -Kreia"

You seem to view all things from the position of your self as the center of everything. Love is more than feeling.

 

[nazz]

To refute that would be to open up a whole new debate on proving religion is wrong.
Have you got a few spare years to discuss the bible, evolution and many other relevant subjects.
So I happily pass on that one and you can make what you want from that.

OK, fine. I make that you mistakenly think I think the bible is inerrant and that evolution is false. I guess it's easy to dismiss all religion if you turn it into a straw man.

 

[lunamoth]

And humans can be criticized along the way whatever they do. Advanced medicines, surgeries, and techniques, only occurred in highly developed economies that passed through the industrial age and did and still are doing considerable environmental damage.

And a lot of advanced medical stuff ends up being tested on mice and then other animals. Does a loving god want humans to solve various forms of suffering even if it creates some suffering in the process? Does she support the philosophy that the ends justifying the means? Without animal testing, those various medicines and things have to be used, untested, on human patients. It's basically dealing with a rock and a hard place.

It is almost like dealing with a rock and a hard place. Like Sam Harris, I think that some choices and actions are more beneficial than others, do the most good with the least harm, and we are called to find these better ways of doing things. Even though in our limitations we are going to often get it wrong. We need to try to learn from mistakes, and then learn from all of the new mistakes we make after that. A loving God wants us to do the best that we can to bring about good for others and the world, including lab mice. A loving God is a forgiving God.

Well you could, with a loving and powerful god.

I mean, most Christians probably assume there isn't Onchocerciasis in their heaven. Heaven is where they get the good without the bad, meaning that somewhere along the line they believe that's possible.

This life of struggle and evolution, in a universe that does not care about us, must be of some value. I think it is of value, and in another thread, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/159965-universe-more-amazing-without-god.html, many others are agreeing that God or no God, this universe is amazing and beautiful and wondrous even though it does not care one whit about humans, except through other humans.

I wouldn't want people to commit suicide. The point I was making is that quite a lot of people, especially in less economically developed areas, are reporting themselves an "F" on a happiness rating.

I understand your point, and my counter-point is that even with suffering we still consider living better than death, except when all hope runs out or illness overtakes us. We don't even need to go so far as to point to the suffering caused by parasites and natural disasters. Why should we die at all? Why should we suffer even a broken fingernail? Why should we have to eat? Why don't we all just photosynthesize?

Because we were shaped by the same forces that shaped everything else, and those freely operating forces include tearing down and building up, death and survival, and life fitting into niches that include human eyes.

The world in which everything is happiness and there is no imperfection (as we would call it) would either be a static world, or a world of just one single united entity, or an unpredictable world where the laws of nature can be broken by human action and intention and science is useless, or a world where we really are not free to choose love and instead are perpetually rescued or dependent on God, as a baby is in the womb. Is there a heaven? Is heaven one of those worlds, or something I can't even imagine? I don't know. I think this life has value as it is.

Christianity tends to have among the more specific answers to the problem of suffering, but by extension one of the most disproved ones. It centers around the concept of original sin, with the idea that the world was once perfect (which is not supported via biology, geology, or cosmology for the history of the universe, and is in fact quite discredited) and that it was humans that messed it up literally or metaphorically, brought original sin, and now need to be saved from it to restore perfection again. But all of that is basically wrong when compared to the actual scientifically-studied history of the planet and the universe.

Original sin as you describe it is not a critical element of Christianity, and was introduced centuries after Christ. Ideas, like life, evolve. Original sin does not mean that the world was literally perfect at some point in time and because of some single event we now have death and disease. Original sin describes our state of alienation, our separation from creation, from God, from each other, and ourselves. Redemption is not in restoring perfection, but in overcoming, or at least striving to overcome, that alienation, through love. Christian redemption means that in spite of our numerous short-comings and mistakes, our failures and inability to do what is right much of the time, and outright non-virtuous intentions and actions, we are still beloved by God and we can't be separated from God. And, further, we are called to see each other through God's eyes and love one another.

But see above, about what costs people have to pay to do that, and the nearly infinite number of things that have to be dealt with. Every disease, every impoverished area, the overpopulation that results, and then there's nothing we can do about the suffering of wildlife due to natural causes.

Some of the most horrible things happen without anyone predicting it, even if they did have the best intentions. When Europeans arrived in parts of the Americas, they didn't have the best intentions (rather bad ones actually), but even if they did, it wouldn't have affected the fact that the diseases they brought with them decimated the populations they encountered. It's sort of a harsh cosmic joke for isolated populations to meet each other for the first time and then one of them gets decimated by invisible disease before either side even developed germ theory yet. If we're being creative, I'm sure we can imagine a universe, especially if it were governed by some sort of loving force, where that kind of catastrophic nonsense doesn't have to occur.

A universe where cause and effect are not linked? Where we are not connected to everything else around us? Maybe I am unimaginitive, but I have never been able to see how that would work. Guess that is why I don't speculate on heaven.

I do agree with people like Bill Gates that do what they do. The more charitable aspects of humanity are on an endless quest to try to reduce the unlimited varieties of suffering that humans and other animals are afflicted with.

With you so far...

What your argument seems to be saying is that a loving god created endless varieties of suffering for humans to try to work through and come up with imperfect solutions to, with some of those solutions causing other types of suffering in the process.

But that is a biased view, as if God intentionally created suffering just so we would have something to conquer. I don't see it that way. Pleasure and suffering are both part of life because we are part of this world/universe and impacted by the same 'imperfections' as everything else, 'imperfections' that are necessary for existence. The universe really does not care, nor can it except as expressed through other sentient beings. But we can and do care. We believe that things can be better, and that we have the power to make things better. We have faith that in spite of the evidence to the contrary, the suffering and evil and ignorance and stupidity and selfishness and the supreme indifference of the universe, we have faith that it is good to choose good, even when we ourselves do not directly benefit.

Why do you choose virtue if it is so hopeless?

That's where I was going with that argument- that there a lot of possible missteps and inevitable shortcomings.

For example, when there's a Super Bowl, manufacturers make apparel for both teams as winners, so that they can sell them right away regardless of who wins. They used to destroy the wrong ones. Then they started sending them to impoverished countries instead, to give free clothes, but then arguments popped up about how tens of thousands of free shirts are putting local clothing businesses out of business, since they can't compete with free, which makes the population more dependent.

Or, there's the rice problem with Haiti. American rice is highly subsidized, and starting in the 1980's, due to government programs that some officials including Bill Clinton publicly now regret, American rice started being sold to Haiti at a cost below locally produced rice, which put local farms out of business and dramatically reduced Haiti's ability to feed itself, making them more reliant on foreign imported rice and other food. The program of low cost rice to Haiti basically just ended up benefiting American farms at the cost of Haitians.

So a lot of times, when haves try to help out the have-nots, they end up messing things up with aspects they didn't foresee and making things worse.

Well, yeah. We are 'imperfect.' Just like the rest of the universe.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Surely the world we see around us proves behind all doubt whatsoever that there is a devil [remember?].
Do your problems & mistakes prove you didn't have loving parents?
Seems like you're mad at God for not existing.

Who is the one who made the devil in the first place, knowing that all of these horrible things would happen because of it? Who is the one that does absolutely nothing to stop him, even though he has the ability to? Are any of those our mistakes? I think not.

 

[Penumbra]

It is almost like dealing with a rock and a hard place. Like Sam Harris, I think that some choices and actions are more beneficial than others, do the most good with the least harm, and we are called to find these better ways of doing things. Even though in our limitations we are going to often get it wrong. We need to try to learn from mistakes, and then learn from all of the new mistakes we make after that. A loving God wants us to do the best that we can to bring about good for others and the world, including lab mice. A loving God is a forgiving God.

I agree with harm minimization and that some choices are better than others. But my point is that everything comes at a cost. Medicine comes with testing, as one example. You say that god is forgiving but wouldn't it be better if it didn't create such a necessity in the first place? Who would it be forgiving, us or itself?

This life of struggle and evolution, in a universe that does not care about us, must be of some value. I think it is of value, and in another thread, many others are agreeing that God or no God, this universe is amazing and beautiful and wondrous even though it does not care one whit about humans, except through other humans.

I saw that thread and I posted there. Whether the universe is amazing and beautiful or not is a subjective opinion, and there's sampling bias in there for those that are wealthy and comfortable enough to have internet access and for the most part live in developed countries. Most of them are not the ones rating their life satisfaction a 1/10 or 2/10 or 3/10 like significant chunks of the developing world do. People in North America and Europe statistically have rather high marks for life satisfaction, as do the more comfortable people in other countries in general.

I understand your point, and my counter-point is that even with suffering we still consider living better than death, except when all hope runs out or illness overtakes us. We don't even need to go so far as to point to the suffering caused by parasites and natural disasters. Why should we die at all? Why should we suffer even a broken fingernail? Why should we have to eat? Why don't we all just photosynthesize?

Because we were shaped by the same forces that shaped everything else, and those freely operating forces include tearing down and building up, death and survival, and life fitting into niches that include human eyes.

Just because someone is living doesn't mean they prefer life to death. There's also survival instinct to consider, people that fear a harmful afterlife, and people that feel tied to obligations and want to stick it through for them. I mean, imagine the experience of someone rating their cumulative life satisfaction a 2 out of 10.

The world in which everything is happiness and there is no imperfection (as we would call it) would either be a static world, or a world of just one single united entity, or an unpredictable world where the laws of nature can be broken by human action and intention and science is useless, or a world where we really are not free to choose love and instead are perpetually rescued or dependent on God, as a baby is in the womb. Is there a heaven? Is heaven one of those worlds, or something I can't even imagine? I don't know. I think this life has value as it is.

That's moving the goal posts. I never argued that a world without any suffering at all is preferable. In fact I once spent four pages in a one on one debate thread arguing against that point, that a perfect world should exclude all suffering. I define the problem of suffering more specifically than that- not that all suffering is bad but that certain types of it are so extreme and just tend to destroy rather than build anything up.

So it's a valid question- is a microscopic parasitic worm that causes blindness and pain a necessary type of suffering? Did god put it there so people could try to master nature and eliminate it? Did god ignite the Big Bang and then not know where it was going, that some bad comes with some good, and would prefer those parasitic worms to not exist but the chips fell where they did?

Or, would a loving god have a global ecosystem entirely built on a predator/prey system, constantly setting up no-win scenarios involving either starvation or violent death? Or like when a mass extinction even occurs and kills 80% of living creatures at the time, is god staying out of it and letting things work out however they will, or could have intervened, or did it decide to cause that for a purpose, like breaking some eggs to make an omelet?

Would you say that this universe is a good expression of the values of your god as it is, or no?

What is your view of these things? Could you briefly describe how you view the interaction between your god and the universe?

Original sin as you describe it is not a critical element of Christianity, and was introduced centuries after Christ. Ideas, like life, evolve. Original sin does not mean that the world was literally perfect at some point in time and because of some single event we now have death and disease. Original sin describes our state of alienation, our separation from creation, from God, from each other, and ourselves. Redemption is not in restoring perfection, but in overcoming, or at least striving to overcome, that alienation, through love. Christian redemption means that in spite of our numerous short-comings and mistakes, our failures and inability to do what is right much of the time, and outright non-virtuous intentions and actions, we are still beloved by God and we can't be separated from God. And, further, we are called to see each other through God's eyes and love one another.

In that worldview the short-comings, mistakes, and failures, are a natural result of the instincts humans evolved as social predatory omnivorous apes. The tribalism, materialism, capacity for aggression, and lust- these things played a role in keeping humans alive to this point.

A universe where cause and effect are not linked? Where we are not connected to everything else around us? Maybe I am unimaginitive, but I have never been able to see how that would work. Guess that is why I don't speculate on heaven.

Where did you get that from what I wrote there?

Imagine the infinite number of ways the laws of physics could be different. Imagine if the world didn't have microscope organisms that kill people and spread, for example. Cause and effect can still exist, and beings can be connected to the world around them. The environment can simply be different; this is one of a potentially infinite number of expressions that the universe could have existed as, especially if there was any sort of conscious powerful force behind its creation.

With you so far... But that is a biased view, as if God intentionally created suffering just so we would have something to conquer. I don't see it that way. Pleasure and suffering are both part of life because we are part of this world/universe and impacted by the same 'imperfections' as everything else, 'imperfections' that are necessary for existence. The universe really does not care, nor can it except as expressed through other sentient beings. But we can and do care. We believe that things can be better, and that we have the power to make things better. We have faith that in spite of the evidence to the contrary, the suffering and evil and ignorance and stupidity and selfishness and the supreme indifference of the universe, we have faith that it is good to choose good, even when we ourselves do not directly benefit.

The OP didn't do this but generally when the problem of evil/suffering is brought up with precision, it sorts the issue into options. The argument itself tends to be that the existence of suffering, or at least unnecessary and extreme suffering, is evidence that an all-powerful and loving god doesn't exist.

If theist grants that their god is loving but not all-powerful, then they've conceded to the argument. Likewise, if a theist grants that their god is all-powerful but not especially loving, then they've also conceded to the argument. The problem of evil/suffering only applies to all-powerful loving gods.

It looks like your view of god is loving but not all-powerful, if you're saying that god didn't intentionally create suffering. That all of this happened with unguided evolution and the chips fell where they did, and it is what it is. That's not unlike my fairly non-theistic worldview.

But then what role does your deity have? Do you believe in theistic evolution or atheistic evolution? Do you believe sapient beings such as humans were intended to evolve by your deity at any point, or did that happen due to chance? Do you believe your deity has any awareness or concern for individual conscious creatures or does it distance itself from those things and focus only on the bigger picture? Because as described so far, your description sounds like it's not theistic and it's not too different than mine- that this universe happens to be the way it is and we have to deal with it the way it is, because god is not involved.

Why do you choose virtue if it is so hopeless?

Because I never said that there aren't some better choices than others. They have a cost, but some costs are worth it for the benefit. But that's making the best of a bad situation.

Well, yeah. We are 'imperfect.' Just like the rest of the universe.

Agreed, but that doesn't really deal with the issue that was presented.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Forget about disease and natural disaster. It's difficult to understand how a kind and loving god would allow so much greed and human beings to be so unkind towards each other.

It's called "free will."

Ever hear of it?


Bruce

 

[Iti oj]

I bumped into a Plymouth Brethren the other day. Now I am not singling out that particular religion but the conversation highlighted a problem I have always had about the God of the bible.
I asked him “why would a loving God create smallpox for example, or river blindness [Onchocerciasis] or Malaria” and so on. His answer was ‘to test mankind’ ?

Surely the world we see around us proves behind all doubt whatsoever that if there is an intelligent creator he is not the loving God that the Christians believe in?

To me god will always be that being who could have made pokemon real but was like naw here's malaria.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It's called "free will."

Ever hear of it?


Bruce

Are hurricanes, tornadoes, and cancer caused by free will too?

 

[George-ananda]

Are hurricanes, tornadoes, and cancer caused by free will too?

In defense of Bruce, did you not read the post BruceDLimber was responding too?

Forget about disease and natural disaster. It's difficult to understand how a kind and loving god would allow so much greed and human beings to be so unkind towards each other.

Bruce's response makes sense to me.

 

[lunamoth]

I just spent 40 minutes typing my replies to you and hit a wrong key ... :computer:
I don't have time now to write it all out again. I will try to quickly address some of your main points and questions.

I agree with harm minimization and that some choices are better than others. But my point is that everything comes at a cost. Medicine comes with testing, as one example. You say that god is forgiving but wouldn't it be better if it didn't create such a necessity in the first place? Who would it be forgiving, us or itself?

I saw that thread and I posted there. Whether the universe is amazing and beautiful or not is a subjective opinion, and there's sampling bias in there for those that are wealthy and comfortable enough to have internet access and for the most part live in developed countries. Most of them are not the ones rating their life satisfaction a 1/10 or 2/10 or 3/10 like significant chunks of the developing world do. People in North America and Europe statistically have rather high marks for life satisfaction, as do the more comfortable people in other countries in general.

Just because someone is living doesn't mean they prefer life to death. There's also survival instinct to consider, people that fear a harmful afterlife, and people that feel tied to obligations and want to stick it through for them. I mean, imagine the experience of someone rating their cumulative life satisfaction a 2 out of 10.

That's moving the goal posts. I never argued that a world without any suffering at all is preferable. In fact I once spent four pages in a one on one debate thread arguing against that point, that a perfect world should exclude all suffering. I define the problem of suffering more specifically than that- not that all suffering is bad but that certain types of it are so extreme and just tend to destroy rather than build anything up.

Apologies. I was thinking of MeowMix's position, which is that God could create a world with virtually no suffering, except for unrequited love.

So it's a valid question- is a microscopic parasitic worm that causes blindness and pain a necessary type of suffering? Did god put it there so people could try to master nature and eliminate it? Did god ignite the Big Bang and then not know where it was going, that some bad comes with some good, and would prefer those parasitic worms to not exist but the chips fell where they did?

It is not necessary; the chips fell as they did. It would be better to cure and eliminate it, and if possible should be done.

Or, would a loving god have a global ecosystem entirely built on a predator/prey system, constantly setting up no-win scenarios involving either starvatIion or violent death? Or like when a mass extinction even occurs and kills 80% of living creatures at the time, is god staying out of it and letting things work out however they will, or could have intervened, or did it decide to cause that for a purpose, like breaking some eggs to make an omelet?

No particular form of suffering, competition, starvation, extinction, is necessary, but it is a consequence.

Would you say that this universe is a good expression of the values of your god as it is, or no?

It is an expression of the attributes of God. Values are from our perspective.

What is your view of these things? Could you briefly describe how you view the interaction between your god and the universe?

God interacts with the world through us and our actions.

In that worldview the short-comings, mistakes, and failures, are a natural result of the instincts humans evolved as social predatory omnivorous apes. The tribalism, materialism, capacity for aggression, and lust- these things played a role in keeping humans alive to this point.

Yes, they are things that played (and still do) a role in our survival. But we can also choose to rise above the harmful and violent aspects of our nature.

Where did you get that from what I wrote there?

Apologies. I did not connect all the dots in my response to you. I think it is not possible to have a different set of physical laws that 1) allow life to exist, 2) allow growth and change, 3) are consistent at the level at which life operates (ie, above the atomic level), so that 4) we can get reliable information about our environment, which includes 5) scientific inquiry, and 6) allows freedom and autonomy.

Imagine the infinite number of ways the laws of physics could be different. Imagine if the world didn't have microscope organisms that kill people and spread, for example. Cause and effect can still exist, and beings can be connected to the world around them. The environment can simply be different; this is one of a potentially infinite number of expressions that the universe could have existed as, especially if there was any sort of conscious powerful force behind its creation.

But I can't imagine this infinite number of ways. Can you please describe it? You can't change a physical law and prevent just microscopic organisms that are harmful to exist. Everything is connected. There could be a different set of physical laws leading to a different kind of universe and a different kind of life, but unless it is directly manipulated intentionally by some greater power, then 'bad' things will happen to some of all of the life in the system. It will include change, which includes tearing down as well as building up. Can you describe a form of life that is otherwise?

The OP didn't do this but generally when the problem of evil/suffering is brought up with precision, it sorts the issue into options. The argument itself tends to be that the existence of suffering, or at least unnecessary and extreme suffering, is evidence that an all-powerful and loving god doesn't exist.

If theist grants that their god is loving but not all-powerful, then they've conceded to the argument. Likewise, if a theist grants that their god is all-powerful but not especially loving, then they've also conceded to the argument. The problem of evil/suffering only applies to all-powerful loving gods.

I understand the logical problem of the POE as it is usually debated.

Posting here so I don't lose it again! More to come.

 

[lunamoth]

It looks like your view of god is loving but not all-powerful, if you're saying that god didn't intentionally create suffering. That all of this happened with unguided evolution and the chips fell where they did, and it is what it is. That's not unlike my fairly non-theistic worldview.

I think it is unguided evolution. I don't think that necessarily means that God is either non-loving or not all-powerful. The power of love is not in coercion and force.

But then what role does your deity have? Do you believe in theistic evolution or atheistic evolution?

I have never heard it called atheistic evolution, but I do not believe God guides evolution by tinkering with it physically.

Do you believe sapient beings such as humans were intended to evolve by your deity at any point, or did that happen due to chance?

Both. It came about by chance events, but was inevitable because this universe is a reflection of God' attributes, and sentience is one of those attributes.

Do you believe your deity has any awareness or concern for individual conscious creatures or does it distance itself from those things and focus only on the bigger picture?

Awareness and concern for every creature and each atom of creation.

Because as described so far, your description sounds like it's not theistic and it's not too different than mine- that this universe happens to be the way it is and we have to deal with it the way it is, because god is not involved.

God is not involved in the manner you think he should be, I guess.

Because I never said that there aren't some better choices than others. They have a cost, but some costs are worth it for the benefit. But that's making the best of a bad situation.

So, how does that differ from 'the ends justifying the means?' Or, doing things for the 'greater good.' Both of those principles, as you know, are fraught with danger if followed absolutely. So, you also think we still need to try our best, learn from our mistakes, and try again. We are in agreement on this.

Agreed, but that doesn't really deal with the issue that was presented.

I think it does. Your post and my original answer have scrolled off the page so I can't re-read it, but I think this was about how we make mistakes when we try to do good. We are not perfect. We have imperfect knowledge, imperfect intentions, and imperfect ability to put things into action in the best possible manner. But, we still try and that is a good thing.

 

[roger1440]

Exactly... I think heaven and hell is what we make of it. We can choose to make this life our own personal heaven, or we can choose to make it a personal hell. A bit off track, I know, but still...

“Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.” (Gospel of Thomas, saying 3)The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources


20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)
​

 

[Anonymouse]

Surely the world we live in proves there is no [loving] God.

Common Misconceptions About GOD #15

GOD is not our Father, our babysitter or Superman. GOD is not holy or divine.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Are hurricanes, tornadoes, and cancer caused by free will too?

No, nor did I say that.

IMHO things afflicting humanity fall into three categories:

• Some are indeed God-sent tests, as various scriptures state:

"Do men think then they say, 'We believe,' they will be let alone and not put to proof?"

and

"God verily will sift them and test them."

• Some are simply random events, such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
• But MANY are indeed our own doing due to our own bad choices and pervestity!

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

No, nor did I say that.

IMHO things afflicting humanity fall into three categories:

• Some are indeed God-sent tests, as various scriptures state:

"Do men think then they say, 'We believe,' they will be let alone and not put to proof?"

and

"God verily will sift them and test them."

• Some are simply random events, such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
• But MANY are indeed our own doing due to our own bad choices and pervestity!

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

And why are some "tested" with more brutality than others? Why do some people get everything; wealth, good health, and loving friends and family... while others are left with disease, poverty, illness, and abuse? Do you think that is fair? Does God just love them less?

 

[loverOfTruth]

I bumped into a Plymouth Brethren the other day. Now I am not singling out that particular religion but the conversation highlighted a problem I have always had about the God of the bible.
I asked him “why would a loving God create smallpox for example, or river blindness [Onchocerciasis] or Malaria” and so on. His answer was ‘to test mankind’ ?

Surely the world we see around us proves behind all doubt whatsoever that if there is an intelligent creator he is not the loving God that the Christians believe in?

The Christian version of All Loving God indeed poses a problem in explaining the evils that exist in this world. However, if you take some of the other attributes of God such as 'the Just', 'the Wise' then it is not irreconcilable anymore. Here is a good article that explains that in detail : A Response to The Problem of Evil

"[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving" (Al Qur'an 67:2)

I think this guy explains quite well how within the Qur'an he found the practical answers to his most pressing philosophical questions of why evil exists ... but you have to be patient because he takes you through the journey of his life and then reveals the answer towards the end. I bet his questioning as an ex-atheist would resonate deeply with many atheists.
The Purpose of Life by Revert to Islam Prof Lang

But it is amazing how atheists who themselves are not going through such sufferings/tests are complaining about the sufferings where as people who had the biggest right to complain understand God much better. Listen to this guy's story as an example of what I am talking about ... this is truly inspiring ... [youtube]fA8bZR89L9E[/youtube]
The story of Robert Davila

Some people look at this world and realize there certainly is a God and others perceive it in exactly the opposite manner. It is all about our willingness to submit to a greater authority...
Peace.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Christian version of All Loving God indeed poses a problem in explaining the evils that exist in this world. However, if you take some of the other attributes of God such as 'the Just', 'the Wise' then it is not irreconcilable anymore. Here is a good article that explains that in detail : A Response to The Problem of Evil

"[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving" (Al Qur'an 67:2)

What about all the babies and young children who die horrible deaths from disease, starvation, accident, murder, abuse, etc? They weren't alive long enough to come to faith in your god. What is the point of all this? Are you going tell a child going through things that it's "just a test"?! Your god seems to be extremely callous and uncaring about the extent of suffering that some people go through in life. You can say "but this life is just a test and there"s an afterlife that's more important" all you want, but the fact is that we're living here and now. We're not in some afterlife. This life is very real and the most important thing to us right now. You devalue it by saying that it's not that important and it's just a "test" and nothing more. How sad!

It is all about our willingness to submit to a greater authority...

I'm not submitting to any authority. Especially not one who has not proven himself worthy of my submission. If I want to submit to someone, I'll go to the local S&M dungeon and pay a Dominatrix to dominate me. At least I know I'll get my money's worth, unlike with your god.