53 thoughts on “why does god let bad things happen?”

  1. john zande says:
    December 9, 2015 at 15:24

    I left this comment, but i doubt she’ll approve it:

    Why the confusion? Why the excuses? Evil exists because God is what a limited terrestrial mind would consider evil. The alternative—God is maximally good but thoroughly incompetent and has lost total control of his creation—is a proposition simply too fantastic to entertain for any period longer than the time it takes to drink half a cup of tea. God, by definition, is maximally competent. God, by definition, is maximally efficient. There are no mistakes. There can be no mistakes, no missteps, no lapses or miscalculations. What exists, exists because it was envisaged by the Catalogue of Catalogues that is the mind of God. Evil exists because it is meant to exist, and to suggest it is the result of some personal ineptitude or blunder in the design is athletically preposterous.

    The reach and diversity of evil is growing more complex over time because the reach and diversity of evil is meant to grow more complex over time. Suffering is growing more potent and more expressive over time because suffering is meant to grow more potent and more expressive over time. The influence and dexterity of tiny anxieties and enormous fears is growing more persuasive and personalised over time because the influence and dexterity of tiny anxieties and paralysing fears is meant to grow more persuasive and personalised over time.

    The machine has not malfunctioned.

    The program is running precisely as designed.

    Creation is unfurling exactly as desired by the mistake-free Creator.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply
  2. ladysighs says:
    December 9, 2015 at 15:24

    I forget who said it….but the simplest answer is the best.
    There is no god!!
    Next question. 🙂

    Like

    Reply
  3. Galaxian says:
    December 9, 2015 at 15:35

    I don’t consider the problem of evil a solid argument against the existence of a god, or even of a good god. Too many side issues are brought in, such as what standards are to be used in defining good and evil, and, more fundamentally, whether these two categories can be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If one is taking the atheist’s position, the lack of consistency in how different societies conceive of the divine, or the fact that none of the traditional creation narratives have held up under modern scrutiny, are much simpler and better lines of reasoning that don’t require a detour into ethics.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • Mystro says:
      December 9, 2015 at 21:31

      The problem of evil only disproves the notion of a perfectly good, omni-x, god. And indeed, that notion does entail that good and evil can be mutually exclusive, as the posited perfect god would, itself, be all good and without evil. With it’s own existence as proof that ultimate good (whatever that happens to mean) can be manifest without a trace of evil (however it is defined), there is no reason for a perfect god to allow evil to exist at all. As there is evil, there cannot possibly be a perfect god.

      If you want to talk gods that are not perfect, then I agree, the problem of evil doesn’t apply. But the idea ‘MY god is a perfect god’ is still quite prevalent, so the problem of evil is still a valid and useful take down of many god claims.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • makagutu says:
        December 10, 2015 at 15:53

        My sentiments exactly. One can’t maintain a perfectly good god and evil

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
      • Galaxian says:
        December 12, 2015 at 20:40

        It has the shortcoming, for instance, of having to ignore the situations where gain for one entails loss for another. Catching and eating that hare is good for the lynx but bad for the hare. To solve this, we probably suppose that the god doesn’t create any creatures that need to eat meat. But then we run into another question: Why should we value conscious critters (like rabbits) over presumably non-conscious ones (like carrots)? Thinking along such lines, we eventually realize that “Good” has always been defined within a narrow anthropocentric horizon, which makes some sense for us but which I doubt can be extended to the cosmos at large. Indeed, in the big picture I don’t think good and evil exist; they’re inventions of human beings. If God doesn’t exist, then I don’t want to base my argument for that on something else that doesn’t exist.

        Like

        Reply
        • Mystro says:
          December 14, 2015 at 21:29

          It ignores those situations because they are irrelevant. Hares, lynx, and carrots are not logically necessary beings. Nor is their relationship to each other in the food chain logically necessary. It is just what happens to be. That this dilemma is even coherent is just further support for the problem of evil. A perfect god would have none of it.
          And why would it be that inventions of humans don’t actually exist? I, myself, am an invention of two humans, and I’m fairly certain I exist. This computer and this language I’m using to communicate with you are inventions of humans, and they must exist, or you wouldn’t be able to get the communication. Or are you espousing some version of nihilism? In which case, why do you care at all?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          • Galaxian says:
            December 22, 2015 at 20:57

            I’m not a fan of nihilist philosophy, although I’ll note that the logical necessity of a thing occurs only in relation to other things, as in “if A, then B.” The assumption that thinking about something causes it to exist is the fallacy of reification. The computer coding you’ve used to write must be implemented physically on a machine. It does seem that human beings have widely-held conceptions of “good” and “bad,” yet that doesn’t mean these things have independent existence outside of human minds and brains. Which makes the origin of these concepts interesting. I suspect they may have started within early religion itself.

            Like

            Reply
          • Mystro says:
            December 22, 2015 at 22:34

            Of course good and bad don’t exist outside of sentient beings. Morality would make no sense in a universe without thought. We are indeed the creators of morality. And it came much earlier than religion. Check out the Capuchin monkey fairness experiment.

            Like

            Reply
    • makagutu says:
      December 10, 2015 at 15:31

      hello mate.
      what standard of good do we have other than human standards? If a religious book says those who know god will suffer no evil; what standard is to be used? If it is some imaginary standard, such a promise becomes quite useless.
      And I think evil, any evil would be sufficient argument against the existence of a perfectly good and loving being

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      • Galaxian says:
        December 12, 2015 at 20:47

        Indeed. Although few religions claim that those who know deity will not suffer evil, because they have to admit that’s obviously not the case. So Christianity defers the bliss to an afterlife, while Buddhism takes suffering as a consequence of desire and says we can eliminate the latter.

        Like

        Reply
  4. Honestly Thinking says:
    December 9, 2015 at 20:09

    The bigger question is…why does existence itself let bad things happen?

    Like

    Reply
  5. Robert A. Vella says:
    December 10, 2015 at 00:33

    Since I do not believe in god(s), the relevant question for me is not:

    “Why does god let bad things happen?”

    but:

    “Why do bad things happen?”

    Like

    Reply
    • Honestly Thinking says:
      December 10, 2015 at 04:14

      Curious on your thoughts on why to your question.

      Like

      Reply
      • Robert A. Vella says:
        December 10, 2015 at 09:19

        For lack of a better word, there exists an “impetus” throughout human history which pits man versus man, man versus nature, and man versus his own perceptions of reality. Politics, religion, and our other cultural institutions, work not for their stated purposes, but to further the ambitions of greedy, narcissistic, and often delusional or sociopathic, megalomaniacs. That some of these people in power may occasionally produce egalitarian outcomes is purely incidental. What drives them is ego, not altruism.

        Flocks cannot organize and direct themselves. Sheep must follow. They place their blind trust in those who would lead. Those who would lead demand privilege and obedience.

        For human civilization which has exceeded its former hunter-gatherer limitations, this leader-dependent method of governance generally produces deleterious results. As populations rise and social interactions become more complex (through technological development), failures of leadership become proportionally more acute.

        More concisely, a lot of bad things happen because our wisdom has not kept pace with our technology. The continuance of human civilization depends on us finding another way.

        Like

        Reply
        • Honestly Thinking says:
          December 10, 2015 at 09:50

          Interesting. In large part I agree. Do you think that a “better way” does exist? And if so, why? Or why does nature have a good way and a bad way and what does it say about the character of nature or our universe?

          Like

          Reply
          • makagutu says:
            December 10, 2015 at 16:07

            Nature doesn’t in my opinion have a good or bad way. It is from our view that things are either good or bad. Yes, a better way exists simply because we can think it. At one time the only way to get water from point A to B was use donkeys, now we have piped water.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply
            • Honestly Thinking says:
              December 10, 2015 at 19:01

              I could be wrong about this but it seems to me that we tend to base our thinking on whether something is good, bad, or better on how much order it brings (whether that order is constructive/destructive, helpful/harmful, comfortable/painful, peaceful/chaotic, efficient/inefficient, etc). In that sense you could almost say that, whether there is intention behind it or not, nature is not so indifferent because it still often “forces” a consequence of action that results in more order or more chaos. Kind of playing off of my other question of why does existence allow bad things to happen, if we are comfortable accepting it as an indifferent existence and accept that good vs bad is merely what we think but can’t really judge existence itself for it, then why do people get upset with a god ( or at least the concept of a god) for allowing “bad” things when he is merely a part of the same indifferent existence? How do we even judge that?

              Like

              Reply
              • makagutu says:
                December 10, 2015 at 19:27

                I don’t know whether I would call a slight rain that clears dust to have brought order. For some that slight rain might be a bad thing because their plants may not grow. So it is all a question of perspective.

                To think of nature as being concerned about how things turn out is, in my view, to project our ideas to it. I see no intention behind it. It just is. A lion eats a gazelle. A gazelle eats grass and a vulture eats them all. The tectonic plates move and we have an earthquake. I see no intention.

                How do we judge whether a thing is good? Custom first and secondly how they make us feel.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply
          • Robert A. Vella says:
            December 10, 2015 at 19:02

            Yes, a “better way” probably exists; but, I’m pessimistic about our ability to find it.

            I’ll leave your other questions for you to ponder. We’re getting way off topic now.

            Like

            Reply
            • Honestly Thinking says:
              December 10, 2015 at 19:13

              Bob, just fyi, I apparently was typing my latest response (mainly to makagutu) at same time as your latest. Just wanting to be clear on that so you don’t think I was being disrespectful to your mentioning of getting off topic. I appreciate your response and feedback.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply
        • makagutu says:
          December 10, 2015 at 16:05

          Well said Bob.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
    • makagutu says:
      December 10, 2015 at 15:57

      If there is no god, should this be a question?

      Like

      Reply
  6. shelldigger says:
    December 10, 2015 at 04:32

    1. Ineptitude? Then god isn’t such a hot shot after all is he?

    2. Encouragement? Then god isn’t quite the nice guy you thought he was, is he?

    3. He is helpless to stop it? See #1

    (Yes I know this is memed out there somewhere, whoever smacks me with a meme gets coal for x-mas, I’m looking at you JZ!)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  7. religionerased says:
    December 10, 2015 at 05:07

    I laugh every time I see a ‘God is this, God is that’ kind of post. Oh you’re the one that is telling me how God works? That really makes me feel a God exists…

    Like

    Reply

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.