Originally posted by flyUnity
Well you dont see the point in the story, I dont think its a true story btw. My point is to show that God allows stuff to happen when we dont know why, sometimes we find out later why, sometimes we dont (as in the case with the Shipwreck). I told the story so we can look at the trials of life and KNOW that there is a purpose to everything
Somone who is m ...[text shortened]... no value to atheists because you dont believe in a God, so to you, my post is complete nonsence
How can you possibly deduce that there is a purpose to everything based on one unextraordinary coincidence? Or are you claiming that every fortunate turn of events, no matter how minor, is the hand of god at work? If so then you must also give him the blame for every tragedy that occurs that has no silver lining. Many people have their houses burn down where nothing good happens afterward at all. If you are going to give god credit for all the good things that happen, no matter how minor, then you MUST give him the blame for all the bad things too. God cannot get credit for one and avoid blame for the other. So let's take a tally from your story, shall we?
1. X number of passengers and crew from the ship were drowned. God either sank the ship with his own hand, or he gave his tacit approval by not intervening to keep it afloat. What purpose was served by this action? Could that same purpose have been accomplished with a lesser cost in life?
2. God burned down the man's wretched hovel, ostensibly for the purpose of re-directing a ship to the island. Could not god have influenced the ship to change course without such theatrics?
3. The man gets rescued. A whole litany of evil is being overlooked or condoned as being necessary to bring about one small fortunate turn of events. For an omnipotent god, this is an extraordinarily poor conversion ratio, with 10 parts evil being required to cause 1 part good. In no way am I an omnipotent god, but I think even I could come up with a scenario that would invert that evil to good proportion. Here is my version of the story:
A ship runs aground on a remote and unihabited island. All the crew and passengers make it ashore. They prayed feverishly for God to rescue them, and every day they scanned the horizon for help, but none seemed forthcoming. They finally decided that their only hope was to try to repair and refloat the ship. During their repairs a fire breaks out onboard and the ship is consumed by fire. The repair crew narrowly avoids being burned alive and make it back to the island. With smoke rolling up to the sky the worst had happened, and everything was lost. They were stunned with disbelief, grief, and anger. "God, how could you do this to us?" they cried. Early the next day they were awakened by the sound of a ship that was approaching the island. It had come to rescue them. "How did you know we were here?" Asked the weary crew of their rescuers. "We saw your smoke signal," they replied.
In my version of the story, the same message is delivered to more people at a much smaller cost. 1 part evil was required to cause 10 parts good. If god were truly all powerful and all loving, and if evil is really necessary to bring about a greater good, then god would necessarily want to cause the maximum amount of good while resorting to the minimum amount of evil. Your god could have easily constructed the scenario as I described above, instead of bungling through your version of the story.
The whole point of all this is that your story tries to justify evil as being a necessary component in god's greater plan. But if you look at the vast amount of evil plaguing man throughout the entire world, you are invariably forced to ask how much evil is necessary to bring about this supposedly great plan of his?
Certianly an omnipotent god could bring his plan to fruition without quite so much evil. And an omnibenevolent god would necessarily want to do so. The inevitable conclusion is that god is either not all powerful or he is not all loving (or both). As god is defined as being omnipotent and omnibenevolent (as well as being omniscient) the state of affairs in the world would indicate that it is not being run by such a god. You are left with (A) a weak or malevolent god who actively manages the world. (B) a deist god who has no input into the world anymore. (C) no god at all. A 3 "O" christian god is incompatible with the presence of evil in the world.
Attempting to demonstrate that we cannot know god's "bigger picture" solves nothing. All this argument succeeds in accomplishing is demonstrating that we can know absolutely nothing about god at all. Also, trying to foist the blame for evil off on Satan is a very weak argument. The counter argument then substitutes "Satan" for "evil". Instead of saying why does god cause or tolerate the presence of evil?
the argument becomes why did god cause Satan, and why does he continue to tolerate his presence?