How come thousands of people die....

[pinky09]

---

ngjoke rna xa bro..

[annerhexian]

I have my own belief on that. I can only share it to you though, but what of it really? Will it satisfy you if i do?.

hehe share daw bro sa imoha.. will it satisfy me? just plain curiosity here.. will u share it na?

[motterj]

This argument always start with a list of specific atrocities or disasters, then says "if there's a God, why does He let these things happen?", usually with the conclusion that God doesn't in fact exist at all.

But if you look at the question, it contains a flaw of logic. The things like the Swedish family being murdered and children in Africa starving are presented as moral wrongs: it is wrong to kill innocent people, it is wrong that children should starve. But, where did this sense of right and wrong come from in the first place?

If it just evolved on its own, why? Wouldn't the pragmatic view be more advantageous to individuals? If I'm hungry, why shouldn't I kill you and take your food? Why shouldn't I kill a baby and eat it? Yet we (and I mean almost all societies, now and in the past) feel that these things are wrong, and if anyone commits these crimes and are caught, they're punished.

If you were to argue that it developed over time because not doing these things was to the greater advantage of humanity as a whole, helping to ensure its survival, then again, why? Why should I, as a thinking, reasoning being with a sense of Self, care what happens to humanity at large? How will one individual killing another one over material goods harm the whole of human kind? It happens all the time and we're still here (except of course the victims of these crimes). One more victim more or less won't make any difference to humanity at all.

Why should I care about what happens to a bunch of children halfway across the planet in a place I've never even seen, as long as I have enough to eat myself? Yet we do care. the OP cares or he wouldn't have raised the question about why does God allow this to happen.

You may say, "but if everybody did it (commited murder, etc.) , humanity as a whole would suffer." Well, isn't that just the Law of the Jungle, red tooth and claw, that atheists claim is what predominates in the world? Survival of the fittest? Those who are easy to kill should get killed, those that are hard to kill should live and breed. Those that can feed themselves should eat, those that can't should starve. This would, arguably, benefit the human race overall by making it stronger, not to mention reversing the adverse effects of overpopulation. Yet even societies that have a huge population problem have laws against murder and cannibalism, and the average member of those societies agrees that those things are really wrong. But they can't explain why. They'd just look at you like you were crazy if you even asked, and would say, "Everybody knows that that's wrong!"

It seems to me that there's a global, humanwide moral law or code that tells us what's right and what's wrong. It's a basic, almost instinctive sense of justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness. So, if we have this universal moral law, it stands to reason that there must be a lawgiver. Otherwise why would this feeling of moral rightness and wrongness exist so universally, even in cases where it's to the detriment of a particular society? It had to have come from someplace.

So, in my view, the OP's original question contains inherent logical proof that a higher moral consciousness (God) exists, in his assumption that the things he mentioned having happened were wrong and bad.

[fingolfin]

.. hahayz... another never ending discussions that will just go round and round and round...