Why didn't god stop Super Storm Sandy?

[Rakhel]

Why stop something that had a purpose?

 

[1robin]

Well i am glad you think it's funny buddy... i am sure all the people who suffered and died in the storm will think so too. And i am not going anywhere soon so no need to worry. More (rants) will be compiled shortly. This is but a taste of things too come...

First I owe you an apology and then I will address this posts innacuracies. I replied to a post you made in a thread I did not realise was in the DIR where challenges to your claims are not allowed. Sorry about that.

Now to buisness. This appeal to sympathy is invalid. There was no implicaion, indication, or possible reason for you to make the silly claim I was laughing about a storm. You made that up because you think it puts you on some kind of moral high ground but it doesn't. I was laughing at all the self contradictory claims you were making and the emotion driving force apparent in them. It was the literary equivalent of screaming strange things someone because you are mad or so it appeared to me anyway.

Whatever the cause of the humor I find in your posts was also contained in the last few lines of this one one so please rant away till your hearts content.

 

[1robin]

Had man not chosen independence before God parted the Red Sea for the Israelites?

Any argument for why God doesn't intervene to prevent disaster is incompatible with the belief that he does intervene when he sees fit.

Is the fact that sometimes doctors do not cure things incompatible with the fact that they can cure things. You are using a premise composed of his omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness to draw a conclusion about will and purpose which can't be done. God's mission is not to make everyone happy it is to allow freewill and natural law to operate most of the time and he predicted and explained that that would lead to terrible circumstances and much evil. Miracles are miracles because they are rare. there is nothing inconsistent between the book that predicted and explained the source and existence of suffering and reality. In fact the same book had a perfectly sustained universe (or at least an Earth) with no tornados or storms until the fall. Man's general sinfulness removed God's most of God's provision and that results in general suffering. As far as I know all but maybe two Biblical characters suffered and died as we all do. Nothing inconsistent. Jesus the most benevolent individual in recorded history suffocated on a cross yet did not find it incompatable with faith. Forgave his executioners, and said the fathers will be done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the fact that sometimes doctors do not cure things incompatible with the fact that they can cure things.

No, because a human doctor is a limited being.

You are using a premise composed of his omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness to draw a conclusion about will and purpose which can't be done.

Sure it can. If an omnipotent being wills something to happen, then it will happen. If it doesn't happen, then this indicates that the omnipotent being did not will it.

God's mission is not to make everyone happy it is to allow freewill and natural law to operate most of the time and he predicted and explained that that would lead to terrible circumstances and much evil.

IOW, God is indifferent to human suffering. Sure, that's one way to resolve the problem of evil.

Miracles are miracles because they are rare.

... which says nothing about why they're rare.

there is nothing inconsistent between the book that predicted and explained the source and existence of suffering and reality. In fact the same book had a perfectly sustained universe (or at least an Earth) with no tornados or storms until the fall. Man's general sinfulness removed God's most of God's provision and that results in general suffering.

So limited humans thwarted the will of God? How is this possible?

As far as I know all but maybe two Biblical characters suffered and died as we all do. Nothing inconsistent. Jesus the most benevolent individual in recorded history suffocated on a cross yet did not find it incompatable with faith. Forgave his executioners, and said the fathers will be done.

"Jesus didn't find it inconsistent" does not necessarily imply that it isn't inconsistent.

 

[1robin]

Say what? Are you saying that god only rules over the nation of Israel?

Providing for Israel as at this event was something he didn't always do especially when they went off the reservation at times, and was consistent with his purpose. Keeping everybody dry, happy, and free of storms is in no way his purpose. His goal is not freedom from suffering in this life and the person pleasure of man in general in this "vaile of tears". He protected Israel at times because of a covenant made with Abraham originally and mainly concerned the integrity and impact of his revelation to man. If his purposes are kept in the context then natural events or the suspension of them is far easier to understand. Israel has had certain advantages but looking at history it was more than compensated for by tragedy and higher expectations than for others.

 

[1robin]

No, because a human doctor is a limited being.

That was fast. God is limited in a manner of speaking by his purpose and revelation but not in capability. He has no purpose that would gurantee all storms would never develope. Nature has been left to it's own devices with rare exception and suffering is predicted exhaustively by the Bible.

Sure it can. If an omnipotent being wills something to happen, then it will happen. If it doesn't happen, then this indicates that the omnipotent being did not will it.

But your premise does not indicate or dictate will. God's will is that suffering exist. I can explain why that is but that is a different subject. Your are discussing capability not decisive will.

IOW, God is indifferent to human suffering. Sure, that's one way to resolve the problem of evil.

No, in specific words God has suffecient moral reason to allow suffering. The Bible is full of examples of his regret at what our rebeliion has resulted in. This is a different issue but can be hashed out if you wish, than your original contention but it takes time.

... which says nothing about why they're rare.

Yes it does. When creation fell God removed his sustaining supervision over everything and left it to it's own devices most of the time. Man basically said I got this and God said then have at it and see if you like it. God said specifically that sin results in suffering if there is no suffering he would be a liar or made up yet when his claims are confirmed for some reaosn it is taken as evidence against him by those who desire it.

So limited humans thwarted the will of God? How is this possible?

The will of God was to give us freewill and let us reap the rewards of it's use. We have. If Adam had exercised his freewill to slap Eve a new one there would be no storms, death, or moral relavatism.

"Jesus didn't find it inconsistent" does not necessarily imply that it isn't inconsistent.

That's an argument from silence. I have to roll soon but will be back tomorrow. Have a good afternoon.

 

[Skwim]

​

 

[Awoon]

God wanted Chris Christie and the President to be on TV together.

 

[Exordius]

And why praytell are you not allowed to challenge my postion on this DIR? I do not remember there being any rule stating that you cannot challeng my post? If you wish to challenge it then by all means please do. You can't have a decent debate if your opponents are not able to attack your position. I am here for that first and foremost. "Hit me with your best shot", as the 80s tune goes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was fast. God is limited in a manner of speaking by his purpose and revelation but not in capability. He has no purpose that would gurantee all storms would never develope. Nature has been left to it's own devices with rare exception and suffering is predicted exhaustively by the Bible.

You aren't answering anything by saying "nature has been left to it's own devices". Saying that God has done something doesn't speak to God's motives for why.

But your premise does not indicate or dictate will. God's will is that suffering exist.

I agree: that's the logical inference if we take as given the existence of God and recognize that suffering exists.

I can explain why that is but that is a different subject. Your are discussing capability not decisive will.

No, I'm talking about both of them. If God has the capability to do anything, then when he fails to do something, it's not because he wanted it to happen but was incapable of making it happen; it's because the thing wasn't in accordance with his will.

No, in specific words God has suffecient moral reason to allow suffering.

What could be a "sufficient moral reason to allow sufffering"?

The Bible is full of examples of his regret at what our rebeliion has resulted in. This is a different issue but can be hashed out if you wish, than your original contention but it takes time.

The Bible's also full of examples of God intervening to help his favoured people, hurt or kill his disfavoured people, and generally making his will happen on Earth, human free will be damned.

Yes it does. When creation fell God removed his sustaining supervision over everything and left it to it's own devices most of the time. Man basically said I got this and God said then have at it and see if you like it. God said specifically that sin results in suffering if there is no suffering he would be a liar or made up yet when his claims are confirmed for some reaosn it is taken as evidence against him by those who desire it.

If God made that decision knowing what would happen because of it, then he's morally culpable for the results.

The will of God was to give us freewill and let us reap the rewards of it's use. We have. If Adam had exercised his freewill to slap Eve a new one there would be no storms, death, or moral relavatism.

Free will is a copout response to the problem of evil. There are three big problems with you invoking it that I see:

- Our free will is limited anyhow. There are plenty of things I could conceive of that I am powerless to actually make happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, decided that I should be not free to, say, kill someone with my thoughts. God is okay with us being physically incapable of doing most things that we might want to do.

- We're talking about a storm, not a entity with free will of its own. If we were talking about a mass murder, for instance, then you might be able to make an argument that preventing the murder would involve denying the free will of the murderer, but a storm has no free will. On a sunny day, everyone can exercise their free will as much as in a Class 5 hurricane. Stopping the storm wouldn't have denied free will at all.

- Is there free will in Heaven? Either way you answer this question creates problems: either it suggests that God doesn't care about preserving our free will, or that it's possible to preserve free will while also eliminating suffering.

That's an argument from silence.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I'm saying is that I don't accept Jesus as an authority, so simply saying "Jesus said *whatever*" isn't going to pull any extra weight with me. If you want me to accept some claim, you're going to have to support it on its own merits.

 

[Pegg]

Free will is a copout response to the problem of evil. There are three big problems with you invoking it that I see:

- Our free will is limited anyhow. There are plenty of things I could conceive of that I am powerless to actually make happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, decided that I should be not free to, say, kill someone with my thoughts. God is okay with us being physically incapable of doing most things that we might want to do.

i think we should thank him for that!

 

[1robin]

And why praytell are you not allowed to challenge my postion on this DIR? I do not remember there being any rule stating that you cannot challeng my post? If you wish to challenge it then by all means please do. You can't have a decent debate if your opponents are not able to attack your position. I am here for that first and foremost. "Hit me with your best shot", as the 80s tune goes.

Not this thread, the one contained in the DIR section. It is a discuss but no debate location but I didn't realise it when I made my post. Don't worry I will challenge your ideas where that is an option and did so with my last response. Satanists always fascinate me or at least their foundation for belief does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i think we should thank him for that!

Why? Aren't you unhappy that your free will has been violated?

 

[Jemii]

I say Humanity should be thankful that God did not destroy all the world, but only a part of the world, with Hurrican Katrina, Hurrican Sandy and all the other hurricanes. As long as humanity lives on... what is there to worry about?

God knows when the end times are for people... Read the bible or the Torah or the Quran. They all talk that God controls when a person's life ends... An example from the Qur'an... it says that "we can not delay (our death), nor can we (speed it up); we can't really anticipate our own death. God, a higher force controls our death, only God knows how we are going to die; and we are never to know. Only God knows when we are going to die; and we are never to know because that would be interfering with God's plan.

But with all these Hurricanes, there are always survivors out of the region where the hurricane hit. Thank your lucky stars. Always count your blessings. Just think, if people died in Hurricane Sandy, and they believed correctly; they will be in heaven.

And you got to think about it from this one last angle, I want to introduce to this forum: That when God makes new babies, he has to clear room for them to live and grow. They need to eat and have places to live too.

So to the survivors of any Hurricane, thank God you are able to rebuild. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. You should thank God that God included you just like a new baby, to be able to eat of the Earth again. God makes you stronger, evidence is you are able to rebuild. If people are hurt like with a broken arm perhaps from a hurricane, God is letting you live and God is currently healing thy wounds.

 

[1robin]

You aren't answering anything by saying "nature has been left to it's own devices". Saying that God has done something doesn't speak to God's motives for why.

You are setting up a false standard an then declaring I did not meet it. It was not mandated that I make statements that fully explained God's will and the reasons for it.

The why would be as I have stated many times that God has left us and nature unsupervised to a large extent because that is exactly what we chose. It is the same principle when a father allows his child to suffer for disobedience. So he will eventually understand the true nature of things.

I heard Dawkins once say that what good is God did it even if it is true. We could not do any science with the idea that God made things.
Your statement reminded me of his. Reality does not exist to fulfill any ones arbitrary requirements for it. Reality is just reality, good, bad, or indifferent.

I agree: that's the logical inference if we take as given the existence of God and recognize that suffering exists.

It's very complicated. We would have to get into original purpose verses default purpose and active will verses passive will. In short God allows things by his passive will that he does not wish existed. He may allow me to crash my car if I was drinking but it is not something he desires.

No, I'm talking about both of them. If God has the capability to do anything, then when he fails to do something, it's not because he wanted it to happen but was incapable of making it happen; it's because the thing wasn't in accordance with his will.

Let me state it a different way. God can accomplish everything he wishes if he desires to without an exception. However when dealing with a creature with freewill that he has decided to for the most part allow to operate on it's own, he purposes things our failures do not accomplish. He may desire me to help someone on the road side and when I get to them I might keep going. He has two choices he could in fact make me do what he wished and I believe he does on rare occasions or he could allow me to keep going and whatever suffering that resulted in to exist. Most of the time it is the latter.

What could be a "sufficient moral reason to allow suffering"?

The fact that it produces or results in faith. It is well documented that tragedy always forces people to think about eternal issues. If God predicted the dire results of sin (evil, suffering, and even death itself) yet these things never occurred who would believe him? His mission in this life is faith not happiness. If I told my child that drinking would produce misery yet every time he drank I prevented misery then why would he believe what I said and stop drinking.

The Bible's also full of examples of God intervening to help his favored people, hurt or kill his disfavored people, and generally making his will happen on Earth, human free will be damned.

It is not full of these things. In fact the NT has no allowance for violence of any kind. The OT has a few (two) I think where God orders the complete destruction of a people. In both of those the group in question had been appealed to, to repent for many years and had refused. To give just one example the Canaanites walled live children up in foundations for luck and made their children "pass through fire" for their false God (that is known to secular history and does not come from the Bible, just confirms it). God eventually gave up and ordered their complete destruction so as to keep their evil from infecting the people he had chosen to reveal himself through. Most of the OT is Israel fighting battles it chose to and in many cases they were punished for doing so without God allowing it.

If God made that decision knowing what would happen because of it, then he's morally culpable for the results.

This gets into an area where humans just can't know anything reliably. I, you, nor anyone knows anything about what knowing the future means and I steer clear of issues concerning it. However critics love dark grey areas because anything can be claimed. If the Bible is as flawed as some claim then there are no appeals to hypotheticals necessary. Known reality would be far more than sufficient.

Free will is a copout response to the problem of evil. There are three big problems with you invoking it that I see:
- Our free will is limited anyhow. There are plenty of things I could conceive of that I am powerless to actually make happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, decided that I should be not free to, say, kill someone with my thoughts. God is okay with us being physically incapable of doing most things that we might want to do.

Once again you are confusing issues this time freedom with capability. I can think about killing someone and in most cases I even could do so but freewill has no capability component beyond thought. To clarify I believe that for the most part we are free to think what we wish but there are times that that freedom is taken away as in Pharaoh’s case but it is rare.

- We're talking about a storm, not a entity with free will of its own. If we were talking about a mass murder, for instance, then you might be able to make an argument that preventing the murder would involve denying the free will of the murderer, but a storm has no free will. On a sunny day, everyone can exercise their free will as much as in a Class 5 hurricane. Stopping the storm wouldn't have denied free will at all.

I did not connect freewill with Sandy directly. If you will review, I said that our collective freewill has been used to reject God and so God does not sustain this world as he once did. That let nature of the leash so to speak. That means that God no longer supervises nature to eliminate all suffering, death, and misery. We told God that we got this and he said that we may do so but will not like it and gave it to us. Of course some constraints exist within natural law or all order and life would have been destroyed.

- Is there free will in Heaven? Either way you answer this question creates problems: either it suggests that God doesn't care about preserving our free will, or that it's possible to preserve free will while also eliminating suffering.

I unlike most will not answer things I do not have access to, or revelation of. I have no idea what will be going on in heaven concerning will and the discussion of it would be meaningless.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I'm saying is that I don't accept Jesus as an authority, so simply saying "Jesus said *whatever*" isn't going to pull any extra weight with me. If you want me to accept some claim, you're going to have to support it on its own merits.

I am saying that what a person did not say is not proof of anything no matter who didn't say it or what they did not say. Arguments from what wasn't said have no explanatory power.
If we are discussing the God of the Bible it is necessary to "posit" their reality and what the reality of these concepts mean. You can't debate a subject you predetermine couldn't possibly exist.

Suffering may be inconsistent with a God someone makes up possibly for the reason it produces the inconsistencies that can be used to dismiss the whole concept or because that is what kind of God they wished existed. However there is nothing inconsistent about the existance of suffering and the existance of the Biblical God given his purposes and revelation.