Would a good god allow the Coronavirus?

[Brian2]

Why would a good God permit suffering if not to achieve a greater good.

We just happen to be in that place where suffering happens and the faith is in God and what He has told us of how it all began and where it is ending up.
I don't say I know why it has to be this way and I don't know why people think that they know that a God who is good would not allow it to happen.
For me it's a matter of humility before God and not a matter of using suffering as a reason to diss God.

 

[firedragon]

In this case, wiping out all the “evil” in the world. Note this is not my position, just one that’s been expressed to me through multiple people

No problem.

See, if there is no evil, how would you or anyone define "good"? Will "good" be "normal" or normal be good?

 

[SomeRandom]

No problem.

See, if there is no evil, how would you or anyone define "good"? Will "good" be "normal" or normal be good?

You’d have to ask the Christians and various religious adherents who ascribe to the notion that COVID is sifting out the evil. I’m just the messenger I’m afraid.
Me personally? Anyone who committed crimes against kids deserve a pandemic. But that’s just my personal feelings

 

[firedragon]

I do not know the Islamic scriptures but the Christian one is quite specific that God is a good God.

God is Good
God has allowed the Coronavirus to happen.
Therefore the Coronavirus must have a greater good.

Depends on how you define "good".

Also, in the Bible lets say in one place God is said to be good, it is also said that God knows who banks on God himself. Also you claimed you are not addressing an internal contradiction but that's exactly what you have done above. You are addressing an internal contradiction. Thus you must also provide Biblical verses that says "God is good, and good means he will not allow you to suffer disease". By that your internal criticism of the Bible is a criticism of the Bible, and internal.

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

You’d have to ask the Christians and various religious adherents who ascribe to the notion that COVID is sifting out the evil. I’m just the messenger I’m afraid

That question was asked from the non-religious person, not the Christian or any other religious person. Its addressing the criticism with the problem of evil.

Nevertheless, its probably not relevant to you. I just said that for you to think, based on your own post. Cheers.

 

[SomeRandom]

That question was asked from the non-religious person, not the Christian or any other religious person. Its addressing the criticism with the problem of evil.

Nevertheless, its probably not relevant to you. I just said that for you to think, based on your own post. Cheers.

Well if I was going by personal feelings I’d likely assign people who committed terrible crimes to the affects of the pandemic. We all have a bit of vengeance in us, eh?
I don’t think the pandemic is a judgment from God. Merely an unfortunate circumstance

 

[firedragon]

Well if I was going by personal feelings I’d likely assign people who committed terrible crimes to the affects of the pandemic. We all have a bit of vengeance in us, eh?
I don’t think the pandemic is a judgment from God. Merely an unfortunate circumstance

Thanks. Cheers.

 

[Rawshak]

We just happen to be in that place where suffering happens and the faith is in God and what He has told us of how it all began and where it is ending up.
I don't say I know why it has to be this way and I don't know why people think that they know that a God who is good would not allow it to happen.
For me it's a matter of humility before God and not a matter of using suffering as a reason to diss God.

Could you point out anywhere in this thread where anyone has dissed the Christian God?

 

[Teritos]

Sin is the source of all bad things.

 

[Rawshak]

Sin is the source of all bad things.

Do you think sin creates viruses?

 

[syo]

Of course he would allow it. It makes people fall off their high-horse.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Interestingly many religious folks I know (from multiple faiths) have assured me that this is suppose to be a sort of judgment.

Does the "punishment" fit the "crime" here in anyone's estimation i wonder? Put another way - are we to be learning some type of "lesson" from this punishment in order to see ourselves on a road to "reform?" And if not, then how does this view make any sense to anyone? Why would God punish people in a way that doesn't explicitly let them know what it is they are doing wrong? Because, let's face it, it isn't like He's going to show up and actually inform us of what it is we're doing wrong. It's a bit like putting spiders in someone's bed at night because they forgot to fill the ice cube trays again. It's silly to think this way, and even sillier to believe that a supposed "enlightened" or "most wise" being would think or behave this way.

A cleansing if you will of the “evil.”

From the perspective of the people who hold this view that then must mean that all of the people who have died of the virus were evil in some way? I find this hard to believe... and quite an insult to intelligence I might add.

Please note - I understand you don't hold these views - these are just my comments on the types of people you were describing... which I too know to exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

See, if there is no evil, how would you or anyone define "good"? Will "good" be "normal" or normal be good?

If there is no evil, there is no need to define good.

Sin is the source of all bad things.

Do only evil die in an eathquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, flood or typhoon?

Of course he would allow it. It makes people fall off their high-horse.

They are not all sitting on high horse. Most who suffer are poor people.

 

[firedragon]

If there is no evil, there is no need to define good.

Exactly. Very good.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No problem.

See, if there is no evil, how would you or anyone define "good"? Will "good" be "normal" or normal be good?

"Good" is intrinsically judged from the perspective of the one receiving the benefit (or detriment) of whatever has the potential to be labeled "good" or "bad." Hence, through your eyes, your death (however it happens) may be "bad" (or at least not "good") however, for the housefly who was looking for a nice place to lay its eggs to produce a fresh harvest of maggots, your death may be one of the best things to happen for it all day (its entire life). And that's just a very polarized and obvious example. The variation and nuance within which "good" or "bad" is determined through various perspectives basically pervades everything going on on the entire planet (and beyond).

 

[leroy]

Alex. "In order to assert that there is a God who is supervising this, then it must follow that there is morally sufficient reason for it to occur"

The Bishop could not give a convincing answer IMHO.

The best thing that a theist can do is admit that it is a good argument again t the existence of God.

However it´s an argument based on intuitions “it seems as if God could have done something better”

So if atheist use this argument then theist would also be allowed to use arguments based on intuition …. And I would argue that theist have better arguments of this sort,.

 

[PruePhillip]

Alex. "In order to assert that there is a God who is supervising this, then it must follow that there is morally sufficient reason for it to occur"

The Bishop could not give a convincing answer IMHO.

Viruses, like storms, floods, cyclones, parasites etc are what makes earth,
and thus life, what it is.
The price of having mountains, oceans and protection from radiation is
eathquakes, for instance, as the inner earth is molten - giving us a magnetic
field and subduction which renews the continents and stops the oceans from
filling in.

It's the same with viruses and most things we love to complain about.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would a good god allow the Coronavirus?

Any agent that has the power to prevent gratuitous suffering and fails to do so cannot be called good. But to come to such a conclusion, one must think from premises such as one's moral values, and evidence, to conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning applied dispassionately with a willingness to go where the argument takes him even if the conclusion isn't what he would prefer it to be. The remainder of my answer is in the next section.

If God does it, of course i accept it, i am not one to go against Gods plan

Yes, that is how faith manifests.

This is the other way of thinking. One begins with the belief that God is good by faith, and so there is no way to answer your question but yes, God is good. He just needs to devise a rationalization for why what appears to be bad to those not assuming that it is good is actually good. Examples are offered such as that of a baby throwing a tantrum at the site of a needle in the pediatrician's office, who would judge the jab as evil only because he cannot see the greater good. And so we see similar attempts to argue how a pandemic is actually a good and just thing for mankind. Some will see it as a cleansing, some as a just reward for sinful behavior, some might even say it strengthens the surviving population or targets people that the Lord needs in heaven or that deserve punishment.

This system of thought is called Divine Command theory, which posits that good is defined by what the deity says or does. The problem is that this deity, if it exists, isn't speaking for itself. Others are, and if they want to justify any abomination whatsoever, all they need do is convince the faithful that it is God's will, and they will find a way to see it as good.

This is why Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." How else are you going to make them see evil as good?

This link ought to take you to the 13m19s time mark in this video, where the following discussion can be found between two atheists on a cable show out of Austin, who are taking calls from theists. If the link doesn't actually take you to that mark (sometimes it doesn't), and you want to see this but not necessarily all 15 minutes of it, jump ahead manually to 13m19s:

Tracie (atheist host): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."

Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

This fellow is forced to choose between his God being evil and the little girl being evil and the rape a just reward for something she must have done, just as the victims of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah must have deserved their fate and therefore must have deserved to die.

This is what Weinberg was referring to when he said that religion can make a person who means well view the child victim of rape as evil and deserving of rape. This is the result of this reverse way of thinking, where one begins with what might have been a conclusion if it were correct and the evidence supported it, and makes it a premise. The possibility of concluding an evil God is eliminated.

Incidentally, the other host went ballistic after Shane's response. I didn't reproduce his words here because they were a little salty.

@Conscious thoughts : what would be your answer to Tracie's comment about the rape of the child? Do you agree with the caller? Do you agree with either host?

 

[Teritos]

Do you think sin creates viruses?

yes.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Any agent that has the power to prevent gratuitous suffering and fails to do so cannot be called a good God. But to come to such a conclusion, must one think from premises such as one's moral values, and evidence, to conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning applied dispassionately with a willingness to go where the argument takes him even if the conclusion isn't what he would prefer it to be. The remainder of my answer is in the next section.



Yes, that is how faith manifests.

This is the other way of thinking. One begins with the belief that God is good by faith, and so there is no way to answer your question but yes, God is good. He just needs to devise a rationalization for why what appears to be bad to those not assuming that it is good is actually good. Examples are offered such as that of a baby throwing a tantrum at the site of a needle in the pediatrician's office, who would judge the jab as evil only because he cannot see the greater good. And so we see similar attempts to argue how a pandemic is actually a good and just thing for mankind. Some will see it as a cleansing, some as a just reward for sinful behavior, some might even say it strengthens the surviving population or targets people that the Lord needs in heaven or that deserve punishment.

This system of thought is called Divine Command theory, which posits that good is defined by what the deity says or does. The problem is that this deity, if it exists, isn't speaking for itself. Others are, and if they want to justify any abomination whatsoever, all they need do is convince the faithful that it is God's will, and they will find a way to see it as good.

This is why Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." How else are you going to make them see evil as good?

This link ought to take you to the 13m19s time mark in this video, where the following discussion can be found between two atheists on a cable show out of Austin are taking calls from theists. If the link doesn't actually take you to that mark (sometimes it doesn't), and you want to see this but not necessarily all 15 minutes of it, jump ahead manually to :

Tracie (atheist host): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."

Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

This fellow is forced to choose between his God being evil and the little girl being evil and the rape a just reward for something she must have done, just as the victims of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah must have deserved their fate and therefore must have deserved to die. This is what Weinberg was referring to when he said that religion can make a person who means well view the child victim of rape as evil and deserving of rape. This is the result of this backward way of thinking where one begins with what might have been a conclusion if it were correct and the evidence supported it, and makes it a premise. The possibility of concluding an evil God is eliminated.

Incidentally, the other host went ballistic after Shane's response. I didn't reproduce his words here because they were a little salty.

@Conscious thoughts : what would be your answer to Tracie's comment about the rape of the child? Do you agree with the caller? Do you agree with either host?

I speak only of what God in my belief do to me and for me , i can not speak about if God is the one who punish others. I can not see the background for why other people are being punished, or if it is only coinsidence that they experience pain and suffering.

Nor am i here to judge other people.