What kind of god would give people cancer, aids, epilepsy, emphysema, diarrhea, or any of the other medical problems people get? Why worship a god that isn't good, even if he does exist?

Muslim View

The Muslim Perspective

When you consider that this life is a trial and is temporary, whatever of pain and pleasure in it is part of that trial and temporary as well. Many believe that God doesn't exist, yet they still face these problems you speak of. In that context, these problems would be considered as part of what is possible in this life; something that happens that people have to deal with; something out of our hands. Yet when God is put into the picture it takes on a negative connotation and people want to blame Him?

The fact of the matter is that He gave us life and everything we have. Ironically, when we think of life, love, happiness, food, shelter, health and all the many other blessings that God gives us, these same people don't ask the question: Why not worship a god that does all this good? How ungrateful and self-centered.

In answer to your question: A God who does whatever He wills. A God who gives life and can take it away. A God who gave you the very intellect which you use to question His existence. And we should worship Him because he gave us life. We owe him our very lives and the amount of worship we do can never fully repay all the things He does for us. This, even if you don't see the wisdom behind His decrees.

Muslim view Atheist view Christian view

Atheist View

The Atheist Perspective

by Richard Carrier

No capable and compassionate God would allow any of that. Therefore no capable and compassionate God exists. But whether God exists is a different question from whether, if we agreed He existed, we should worship Him. An evil God might exist, and every moral being ought in that case not to worship Him but rebel against all His works. But I see no credible evidence that even an evil God exists.

The Argument from Evil

Muslim view Atheist view Christian view

Christian View

The Christian Perspective

by Timothy McCabe

Interestingly enough, in presupposing that there is such a thing as "good", we must acknowledge that there is some kind of "rule of behavior" that transcends individual humans. However, if there is no good God, then such a transcendent rule of behavior cannot exist.

In other words, the only reason we can identify things as being good is because there is a good God who is the very measure of goodness. This is called the "argument from morality" and basically goes like this:

Premise 1. If there is no good God, there are no objective moral values.

Premise 2. However, there are objective moral values.

Conclusion. Therefore there is a good God.

Accusing anyone (even God Himself) of behaving in an immoral manner is identical to proclaiming the existence of a good God, because without a good God, nothing would be immoral.

Since, therefore, your question presupposes the existence of a good God, the answer must indeed be that a good God is the kind of God that would give people these diseases, and that since He is the measure of goodness, it would be silly not to worship Him.

We then, as finite and ignorant humans, naturally stand back and ask ourselves a much more appropriate question, namely, WHY a good God would give someone these diseases. Occasionally, we have answers (such as in John 9:3). Occasionally, however, we don't, and unless we have a "god complex" ourselves, there is absolutely no logical reason we should have a problem of any kind with being partially ignorant of our good God's perfect will (just read Job 38-42).

If you have not placed your life in His perfect hands, there is no better time to do so than now.

The Book of Job

Muslim view Atheist view Christian view

Comments

Timothy, I apologize but I have to take exception to your answer from the very first sentence. I can agree that “rules of behavior” allow us to recognize “good” and “evil”. But it is pure assumption on your part to state that “rules of behavior” transcends individual humans. Empathy allows individuals to create personal “rules of behavior” and individuals working together as a society creates “rules of behavior” for the group. Another problem with your argument is that in assuming a consistent, external source (i.e. God) for “rules of behavior” ignores history, including the history as written in the Bible. Your response implies and logic would recommend that “rules of behavior” as dictated by an “all knowing”, “all powerful” and “unchanging” God would also be unchanging since they would be correct from their first creation and yet history shows that “rules of behavior” have changed drastically over the centuries.

-continued-

— Geek Jay

At the time the written about in the Bible women were property, slavery was ubiquitous and capital punishment was acceptable for even the most minor social infractions (If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son … the men of the city shall stone him to death – Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and all these “rules of behavior” are documented and supported in the Bible. They are also abominations in most modern societies. If there was a God (good or evil) and that God is the source of objective moral values, how do you explain the truly drastic changes in the “rules of behavior” over the last 2000+ years? Or are the “rules of behavior” as documented in the Bible still true? And I have to ask a follow up question: When was the last time you took another man’s stubborn and rebellious son and stoned him to death?

I look forward to your response.

— Geek Jay

If I understand your claim, you are suggesting that "good" is simply in the eyes of the beholder: Hitler thinks of "good" one way, but you think of it differently. If this is the case, then claiming that God is not "good" is equivalent to saying that God is not what I like.

This turns the question into "why should I believe in things I don't like, even if they do exist?", which only leads one to ask the questioner why he himself "believes in medical problems" when he apparently doesn't like them (even if they do exist).

My answer justifiably presupposed that this is not the intended meaning of the question. My answer addresses the question with the intended meaning of the word "good" as it seemed, in my mind, to be defined by the questioner.

If you would like to ask the question "why should I believe in things I don't like, even if they do exist?", then feel free.

— Timothy McCabe

Why do zillions of brainless morons who call themselves humans continue to profane the King James Bible by misquoting the verse of scripture about making a man an offender for a word to justify jailing innocent men who are being respectful when they look at and compliment ladies bosoms,cleavages,rears thinking its a crime of being "bothered" when its not? If women and people today had good morals they would cast men out like the devil from stores,malls,etc. and satanically force them against their will to apologize for an imaginary crime that never took place. Today instead of the Salem Witch Trials, we have the American Sexual "hassling" trials. Sounds stupid, huh? That was the biggest mistake in human history when they passed that law. All our laws that humans make along with our money are the devils tools. The Bible never said jail men for compliments,stares,etc. People who pass judgement and lie about mens compliments will live in the nighmare of hell for all eternity.

— Jesus Jones

Somebody forgot The Devil is the one who gives people a.i.d.s.,cancer,epilepsy,emphysema,diarrha. Whoever spoke these words foolishly should consider the source. Who gives me a cold and runny nose in the winter? The evil spirits and their master, the Prince of this world that even the womens socalled movement loves, Belial. Belial tells women to overreact irrevently and impolitely to mens touches,compliments,complimentary whistling,stares,etc. Sexual supposed vexation is a lie from the devil about men and their attention they give women.

— Diablo Playstation 2

As I have said before, and feel I really must reiterate, Tim's "reasoning" leads him to state categorically that slavery is moral. I rest my case.

— Tony

cancer, aids, epilepsy, emphysema, diarrhea, or any of the other medical problems people get - are not given to them by God. They are an unsuspecting person's reactions to evil/psychopathic people's foul game play, always for the sake of pleasure when seeing the suffering, other reasons are to gain power and influence over another person, to punish or take revenge.

— kyrani99

I find it instructive when Tim begins a comment with "If I understand your claim...".

Be advised that this a dead giveaway that Tim is about to indulge in his favourite past-time of re-wording things so that they bear little or no relation to what was actually asked.

— A Philosopher writes...

What kind of god would give people cancer, aids, epilepsy, emphysema, diarrhea, or any of the other medical problems people get? Why worship a god that isn't good, even if he does exist?

More Questions

Comments