If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[harvey1]

Hi McCulloch,

From the atheist perspective there are two versions of what what might be called evil. Firstly random events. Many random events must be interpreted by theists as being evil but without the existence of a supernatural god, they are simply amorally random. Thus, unlike the theist, we do not need to struggle to find the meaning or purpose of tsunami or earthquakes or other natural disasters.

So, you are saying that it is necessary that our world have evil, right? Then please provide a deductive proof showing your premises that prove that the world must contain evil.

Secondly caused events. People have done bad things. Some people have done really bad things. Theists must answer why their god allows bad people to do bad things and why good people must suffer because of the actions of the bad ones. Atheists do not.
Without god, the explanation of why some events can be interpreted as evil is elementary. With god (the personification of Good), one has to explain Evil. We do not posit the existence of any kind of platonic Evil idealized or christian Evil personified. Evil is just a way to interpret the results of events.

So, people are sufficient to explain evil things, right? But, people don't cause tsunamis, do they? How do people cause every evil? I'm looking for a sufficient cause to explain all evil. In addition, I thought you didn't believe in free will. If that's true, then how do can you blame people for evil if they have no free will?

By the way, I don't believe that atheism is correct. I don't believe atheism can provide a cause for anything, much less evil. So, rather than stating what atheists believe, please give me your reasons showing how evil is either necessary or sufficient given premises and proper reasoning that you can prove is the case.

[McCulloch]

From the atheist perspective there are two versions of what what might be called evil. Firstly random events. Many random events must be interpreted by theists as being evil but without the existence of a supernatural god, they are simply amorally random. Thus, unlike the theist, we do not need to struggle to find the meaning or purpose of tsunami or earthquakes or other natural disasters.

So, you are saying that it is necessary that our world have evil, right? Then please provide a deductive proof showing your premises that prove that the world must contain evil.

Our world does contain evil, but I cannot argue that it is necessary that our world would have evil. I do not believe that the atheist position requires that. I do believe that the theist position must somehow reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of the almighty deity. This is a significant enough question that theists and atheists have spilled much ink on it.

Secondly caused events. People have done bad things. Some people have done really bad things. Theists must answer why their god allows bad people to do bad things and why good people must suffer because of the actions of the bad ones. Atheists do not.
Without god, the explanation of why some events can be interpreted as evil is elementary. With god (the personification of Good), one has to explain Evil. We do not posit the existence of any kind of platonic Evil idealized or christian Evil personified. Evil is just a way to interpret the results of events.

So, people are sufficient to explain evil things, right? But, people don't cause tsunamis, do they? How do people cause every evil?

People do not cause every evil. I made no claim that they did.

I'm looking for a sufficient cause to explain all evil.

Let me know when you find it. I have not.

In addition, I thought you didn't believe in free will. If that's true, then how do can you blame people for evil if they have no free will?

I believe that human actions are in some ways like chaos theory. The end result is completely determined but the ability to actually determine it is, even in theory, too complex to be calculated. So, I live with the paradox that we each believe that we have free will and behave in many ways as if we did, but, in reality, we do not. Whether or not you agree with that approach, you must agree that some events which can be interpreted as evil are committed through the agency of human actions. And whether done by free will or determined, the acts are done. If the human were stopped from doing the evil act, either by force or persuasion, the evil would not have been done. So, yes, the people are to blame.

By the way, I don't believe that atheism is correct. I don't believe atheism can provide a cause for anything, much less evil. So, rather than stating what atheists believe, please give me your reasons showing how evil is either necessary or sufficient given premises and proper reasoning that you can prove is the case.

The question being debated is

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?
If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

My position is that if the god described in the christian bible existed, then you would have to show how evil is tolerated by such a god. Without the belief in such a god (a-theism), such a proof is unnecessary. The universe is amoral. Evil is subjective. That which is good for humanity (vaccines) is evil for other life forms (viruses).

[harvey1]

I'm looking for a sufficient cause to explain all evil.

Let me know when you find it. I have not.

Notice though, if there isn't a sufficient cause for evil even in an atheists conception, then the problem of evil is an unsolvable problem for both theist and atheist. Therefore, until it is solved there's no reason to believe that atheism has an edge in its solution. Afterall, it might be a theist reason that solves it (e.g., my Davidsonian solution that I was so rudely cut off from explaining).

I believe that human actions are in some ways like chaos theory. The end result is completely determined but the ability to actually determine it is, even in theory, too complex to be calculated. So, I live with the paradox that we each believe that we have free will and behave in many ways as if we did, but, in reality, we do not. Whether or not you agree with that approach, you must agree that some events which can be interpreted as evil are committed through the agency of human actions.

Are you asking what I believe (e.g., do I believe that God and gruesome evil can co-exist?), or are you asking what I can prove? I cannot prove that some events interpreted as evil are committed through an agency of some type. The universe may really be composed of strings and those jittery little things do all sorts of things for no reason. Humans might be like sunsets in this scenario, they really don't exist (i.e., the sun doesn't actually set in the west and rise in the east). I think most atheists would have to subscribe to a materialist view of the mind, in which case the reason for any action cannot ultimately be that which originates in the mind. There would have to be a firing neuron somewhere which brings the thought to their mind to do evil, in which case the problem of evil would shift to why did that neuron fire versus not.

And whether done by free will or determined, the acts are done. If the human were stopped from doing the evil act, either by force or persuasion, the evil would not have been done. So, yes, the people are to blame.

The culpable people are traced to the scene of the crime, but that doesn't mean they are to blame in the sense that their presence at the crime scene is sufficient to account for the crime. Had a police officer been walking around, they might not have done it (for example). Besides, what if they were being controlled by an evil alien, are they still to blame?

My position is that if the god described in the christian bible existed, then you would have to show how evil is tolerated by such a god. Without the belief in such a god (a-theism), such a proof is unnecessary. The universe is amoral. Evil is subjective. That which is good for humanity (vaccines) is evil for other life forms (viruses).

The problem, though, is if the question itself is unanswerable because it is one that refers to an unanswerable issue, then this must be pointed out. That's what I believe to be the case here. No sufficient cause can adequately explain an effect; evil is just one of those effects. Therefore, the atheist assumes they have a lead in the argument because the theist cannot fully account for causation, but neither can the atheist. Hence, the discussion is one in which we need a good theory to answer this kind of question. This is what I was trying to do, but small minds would rather scathe and grimace than approach the subject with an open-mind.

[McCulloch]

I'm looking for a sufficient cause to explain all evil.

Let me know when you find it. I have not.

Notice though, if there isn't a sufficient cause for evil even in an atheists conception, then the problem of evil is an unsolvable problem for both theist and atheist. Therefore, until it is solved there's no reason to believe that atheism has an edge in its solution. Afterall, it might be a theist reason that solves it (e.g., my Davidsonian solution that I was so rudely cut off from explaining).

Maybe I am missing something. There is a problem reconciling the biblical god with the existence of evil. The problem of evil needs no solution from the atheist point of view. Evil is subjective from the atheist point of view. I do not require any explanation for the existence evil. If some really good man were hit by lightening, the theist has to reconcile that event with his understanding of his god's characteristics. The atheist simply accepts that it was an unfortunate random event.

I believe that human actions are in some ways like chaos theory. The end result is completely determined but the ability to actually determine it is, even in theory, too complex to be calculated. So, I live with the paradox that we each believe that we have free will and behave in many ways as if we did, but, in reality, we do not. Whether or not you agree with that approach, you must agree that some events which can be interpreted as evil are committed through the agency of human actions.

Are you asking what I believe (e.g., do I believe that God and gruesome evil can co-exist?), or are you asking what I can prove? I cannot prove that some events interpreted as evil are committed through an agency of some type. The universe may really be composed of strings and those jittery little things do all sorts of things for no reason. Humans might be like sunsets in this scenario, they really don't exist (i.e., the sun doesn't actually set in the west and rise in the east). I think most atheists would have to subscribe to a materialist view of the mind, in which case the reason for any action cannot ultimately be that which originates in the mind. There would have to be a firing neuron somewhere which brings the thought to their mind to do evil, in which case the problem of evil would shift to why did that neuron fire versus not.

Yes, and human behaviour is way to complex to be able to answer at that level. Imagine building a house of cards. In theory, if you knew the exact position of each card, all of the coefficients of friction and every movement of air in the place where the construct was, you could determine which card would slip first. But such a determination would be too complex to ever be done with any level of accuracy. If you knew every genetic and environmental influence on a person, you could, in theory, if you had sufficient understanding of the brain, determine under what circumstances that person would commit an evil act. But evil, like the sunset, does not, in itself exist.

And whether done by free will or determined, the acts are done. If the human were stopped from doing the evil act, either by force or persuasion, the evil would not have been done. So, yes, the people are to blame.

The culpable people are traced to the scene of the crime, but that doesn't mean they are to blame in the sense that their presence at the crime scene is sufficient to account for the crime. Had a police officer been walking around, they might not have done it (for example). Besides, what if they were being controlled by an evil alien, are they still to blame?

I think that the judicial system is too concerned with blame. What should be relevant is to answer the question, "what is the best way to protect society from the effects of the crime?" If that means punishing the offender then it should be so. If there is no benefit to society then the punishment would be pointless. In the case of the person controlled by an evil alien, if that person continues to be controlled by the evil alien or if the person is likely to continue to be controlled by the evil alien then there would be a benefit to society in having the person restricted.

My position is that if the god described in the christian bible existed, then you would have to show how evil is tolerated by such a god. Without the belief in such a god (a-theism), such a proof is unnecessary. The universe is amoral. Evil is subjective. That which is good for humanity (vaccines) is evil for other life forms (viruses).

The problem, though, is if the question itself is unanswerable because it is one that refers to an unanswerable issue, then this must be pointed out. That's what I believe to be the case here. No sufficient cause can adequately explain an effect; evil is just one of those effects. Therefore, the atheist assumes they have a lead in the argument because the theist cannot fully account for causation, but neither can the atheist.

Right, neither the theist or the atheist have an account for the existence of evil. But the theist believes in the existence of something which, on the surface of it, should not co-exist with evil and the atheist does not. Therefore, the unanswerability of the question seems to weigh in the favour of atheism.

Hence, the discussion is one in which we need a good theory to answer this kind of question. This is what I was trying to do, but small minds would rather scathe and grimace than approach the subject with an open-mind.

I hope that you are not including me in the category of "small minds". I don't think that I was scathing and grimacing too much. Anyway, I cannot help it if my mind is small, it is all that I can fit into my brain.

[harvey1]

Maybe I am missing something. There is a problem reconciling the biblical god with the existence of evil. The problem of evil needs no solution from the atheist point of view. Evil is subjective from the atheist point of view. I do not require any explanation for the existence evil.

The issue, though, is that the atheist says, "I see a problem with God and the existence of evil, please explain how evil can be sufficiently accounted for if God is the cause of the world." My response, though, is that there are no sufficient causes for anything--even subjective views of evil, and therefore it is basically a trick request by the atheist. The atheist cannot account for causal relationships either (of any kind), so the arguments coming back from atheists are just same types of arguments that haunt a causalist who insists there is a sufficient cause for any effect. The argument is that something always falls short in the sufficiency of the cause.

If this is the case, this can be readily demonstrated by turning the question around and asking the atheist to provide a sufficient cause for evil (what they see as subjective, which has no relevance to this issue of causation), which of course the atheist also fails in providing a sufficient cause. That's because no one has solved the problems with causation, especially metaphysical issues related to causation (e.g., the cause of objective or subjective evil).

If some really good man were hit by lightening, the theist has to reconcile that event with his understanding of his god's characteristics. The atheist simply accepts that it was an unfortunate random event.

Well, we all live in a world of approximations. I could accept that the sun sets in the West as an explanation to why it gets dark at night, but the sun setting in the West is not really a cause for it getting dark. First off, the sun doesn't set, the earth rotates until the sun disappears over the horizon, etc.. So, you might see an unfortunate random event as the cause of some good man being hit by lightening, but this is no different than someone saying that it gets dark because the sun sets. The theist can produce a similar cause for evil in light of an all-good, all-powerful God. The problem happens when someone who doesn't like approximations (like people in this thread), and they begin having some fun with the concept of causation. That concept is great fun until it gets turned around on your own views, at which point the person having the fun is just as unable to explain how a cause can be sufficient for an effect as the theist they are poking their stick at.

Yes, and human behaviour is way to complex to be able to answer at that level. Imagine building a house of cards. In theory, if you knew the exact position of each card, all of the coefficients of friction and every movement of air in the place where the construct was, you could determine which card would slip first. But such a determination would be too complex to ever be done with any level of accuracy. If you knew every genetic and environmental influence on a person, you could, in theory, if you had sufficient understanding of the brain, determine under what circumstances that person would commit an evil act. But evil, like the sunset, does not, in itself exist.

Just because eliminative reductionism can take the position that something doesn't exist does not mean that something in fact doesn't exist. If you can't explain the cause of how an effect occurs, then in theory the reason could be because of other reasons than that it is just too complex. Another reason could be because they are irreducible entities. For example, the mind might be irreducible to the brain not because it is too complex for us to know how it can be done, it might be irreducible because the mind is a separate entity altogether from the brain. The mind and brain can share a relation without having to say that the mind is the brain if we just had enough smarts and knowledge to figure out how it all worked.

If that means punishing the offender then it should be so. If there is no benefit to society then the punishment would be pointless. In the case of the person controlled by an evil alien, if that person continues to be controlled by the evil alien or if the person is likely to continue to be controlled by the evil alien then there would be a benefit to society in having the person restricted.

But, my point is that even assuming a materialist perspective, evil (or subjective evil) cannot be caused by a mental state once you add in eliminative reductionism. There is something else that is the cause for evil actions, not some "mental state" which is just brain activity to a materialist. That's a slippery slope because now it is the requirement for the objector to theist arguments of evil to also explain where evil comes from. The atheist has just lost one peg in trying to tie evil to something. Next comes neurons. Next comes atoms. Soon, there is nothing to pin as a sufficient cause to an evil event, and then the atheist is in the same position as the theist who tried to account for evil too.

Right, neither the theist or the atheist have an account for the existence of evil. But the theist believes in the existence of something which, on the surface of it, should not co-exist with evil and the atheist does not. Therefore, the unanswerability of the question seems to weigh in the favour of atheism.

If the problem of causation prevents the atheist from answering a question of what causes evil, then there is no basis to say that the theist is in contradiction to some surface problem. That's because theists can provide surface solutions (e.g., yin and yang), and yet the atheist does not accept that surface solution because they probe the sufficiency argument of yin and yang and find out that the cause is not sufficient for the effect. Well, that's the causation problem! So, the atheist is just assuming that they are in a better position because the theist has trouble with the sufficiency of a cause to explain the effect, and that's the very problem that atheists too can't answer. Now, if the theist couldn't provide a very surface answer, then you might be right. But, theists have many such surface answers. What must be solved is the problem of causation, and then it can be determined if atheism has any advantage over theism in this problem of evil. My guess is that it doesn't. I suspect that theism provides an answer to the problem of causation, and the atheist would not be able to use that answer, hence the atheist would be left in a worse situation to the problem of evil than the theist.

I tried to show this here by going into an answer that would not only answer the problem of evil, but also answer the problem of causation. Unfortunately the individual I tried to this with was not the kind of creative and cooperative individual who seeks those kind of answers to things. It's unfortunate, but some people have agendas that are not seeking truth of any sort.

I hope that you are not including me in the category of "small minds". I don't think that I was scathing and grimacing too much. Anyway, I cannot help it if my mind is small, it is all that I can fit into my brain.

No, I don't. And, it was a mistake to use such a term. Please ignore it.

[harvey1]

To all,

Spetey claimed that I was being absurd and foolish for making the claim that physical possibility supervenes on logical possibility. I'd like to show that Spetey doesn't know as much as he claims about such matters:

This claim strictly implies, you realize, that all physical statements are necessary, and no physical statement is contingent. (If you like I can give a proof to that effect.) It thus implies that you could derive "spetey had Indian food for lunch" from pure logical taugologies. Your new claim is a truly astounding one, even less plausible than your initial one, and will take some serious defending. But insist you know exactly what "supervenience" means, of course, so I guess I should try to take you seriously.... Your argument, if successful, would revolutionize philosophy! Foolish philosophers have thought that physical propositions are contingent all these thousands of years. How they shall hang their heads in shame! Remember, Harvey, that arguments that the mental supervenes on the physical do not thereby show the physical supervenes on the logical, any more than they show that tortoises supervene on hares... Davidson never made such a huge (and prima facie outrageous) claim that the physical supervenes on the logical. (That, I would say, is because Davidson understood what "supervene" means.)... I'm sorry you find actually defending and explaining your views so trying. And I agree that I haven't been the most pleasant disputant lately. But that is simply because you're driving me nuts, defending to the teeth a nonsense claim that you just refuse to give up!... It's as though someone kept insisting that 2+2=5, even though it had nothing to do with the point at hand. People try to show her this is false using ordinary arithmetic reason, counting on fingers and such, but she sticks to her claim.

Now, outside the rudeness, what also made me mad is the closed-mindedness you see in the attitude expressed here. In any case, here's a respected philosopher making the same claim as I:

It might be suggested, as an alternative, that a physically possible branch or state of affairs is definable as whatever is permitted by the laws of nature. This alternative is not available, however, since in Ch.3 below the laws of nature emerge as themselves supervenient upon the structure of (physically possible) branches. As 'physical possibility' and 'law of nature' are interpreted here, both supervene upon the branched structure. (Storrs McCall, A Model of the Universe: Space-Time, Probability, and Decision, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 8n)

And, what is this branched structure that physical possibility supervenes upon?:

It should be emphasized that the universe tree contains no branches which are logically possible without being physically possible... On a branch which is merely logically possible, anything can happen which does not involve a contradiction. The notion of physical possibility is much stricter, however, and embraces only a tiny fraction of the logically possible branches. (ibid, p.7-8 )

I gave Spetey a few days to apologize for his behavior before deciding to embarrass him, so this is why I didn't show this quote when we first discussed the issue. I didn't think I should have to justify such a commonsense notion, but unfortunately Spetey went off in a rampage and there's obviously no remorse on his part in doing so. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the same closed-mindedness you see here is much more global and perhaps has something to do with his being an atheist. Please consider it seriously.

[angelic_spirit]

HI Everyone

Hope i'm not interrupting here.

I just wanted to share a few of my views about evil and it's relationship with God.

In my opinion, God did not create evil, he created man with free will.

Therefore, he cannot destroy evil without destroying man along with it.

Evil is nothing more than man using his own free will to do harm to others.
Free will runs along side of a "mortal" life in my opinion. Which means, this world is not perfect, hence, disease, illnesses, floods, storms etc.... free will of man leads to wars, murders, rape etc....

But God himself does not choose this for us.

Not sure if you all shun the UB or not but i will share a teaching within it.

EVOLUTIONARY MAN FINDS it difficult fully to comprehend the significance and to grasp the meanings of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Man is slow to perceive that contrastive perfection and imperfection produce potential evil; that conflicting truth and falsehood create confusing error; that the divine endowment of freewill choice eventuates in the divergent realms of sin and righteousness; that the persistent pursuit of divinity leads to the kingdom of God as contrasted with its continuous rejection, which leads to the domains of iniquity.
p613:2 54:0.2 The Gods neither create evil nor permit sin and rebellion. Potential evil is time-existent in a universe embracing differential levels of perfection meanings and values. Sin is potential in all realms where imperfect beings are endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil. The very conflicting presence of truth and untruth, fact and falsehood, constitutes the potentiality of error. The deliberate choice of evil constitutes sin; the willful rejection of truth is error; the persistent pursuit of sin and error is iniquity.

Evil is not a "thing". It is a choice. The choice to not choose the way of God.

Well, i'll stop here. Don't want to continue if no one is interested, but if you do have a question for me I will try to answer it as best I can.

I can say that I do not try to "push" my beliefs upon anyone, and am respectful of everyones opinion. All I do is share what i have learned and feel to be truth in order that i may answer someones question along the way.

Blessings

Angelic_Spirit

[harvey1]

Hello Angelic-Spirit,

I enjoyed reading your post. And, no, you're not interrupting. All input from others is welcome!

In my opinion, God did not create evil, he created man with free will. Therefore, he cannot destroy evil without destroying man along with it. Evil is nothing more than man using his own free will to do harm to others... Evil is not a "thing". It is a choice. The choice to not chose the way of God?

Do you think that evil can exist that is not from man? For example, can women do evil (just kidding...). What I mean is, would you consider the effects of the tsunami as evil? If so, then how does God avoid being evil if God could have stopped the tsumami but choose not to.

Not sure if you all shun the UB or not but i will share a teaching within it.

What is the UB?

All I do is share what i have learned and feel to be truth in order that i may answer someones question along the way.

Absolutely. Most of the people here are friendly even when they disagree. There's a few people who don't care to be friendly, they are looking for converts. So, don't mind them.

Blessings to you as well...

[angelic_spirit]

Hi me again.

I noticed also that some of you were asking about natural phenomenon within our world and how that relates to God.

Just to share, i will post what i have read about it.

And that's all i'll add to this. Promise

.

GOD AND NATURE

p56:5 4:2.1 Nature is in a limited sense the physical habit of God. The conduct, or action, of God is qualified and provisionally modified by the experimental plans and the evolutionary patterns of a local universe, a constellation, a system, or a planet. God acts in accordance with a well-defined, unchanging, immutable law throughout the wide-spreading master universe; but he modifies the patterns of his action so as to contribute to the co-ordinate and balanced conduct of each universe, constellation, system, planet, and personality in accordance with the local objects, aims, and plans of the finite projects of evolutionary unfolding.
p56:6 4:2.2 Therefore, nature, as mortal man understands it, presents the underlying foundation and fundamental background of a changeless Deity and his immutable laws, modified by, fluctuating because of, and experiencing upheavals through, the working of the local plans, purposes, patterns, and conditions which have been inaugurated and are being carried out by the local universe, constellation, system, and planetary forces and personalities. For example: As God's laws have been ordained in Nebadon, they are modified by the plans established by the Creator Son and Creative Spirit of this local universe; and in addition to all this the operation of these laws has been further influenced by the errors, defaults, and insurrections of certain beings resident upon your planet and belonging to your immediate planetary system of Satania.

p56:7 4:2.3 Nature is a time-space resultant of two cosmic factors: first, the immutability, perfection, and rectitude of Paradise Deity, and second, the experimental plans, executive blunders, insurrectionary errors, incompleteness of development, and imperfection of wisdom of the extra-Paradise creatures, from the highest to the lowest. Nature therefore carries a uniform, unchanging, majestic, and marvelous thread of perfection from the circle of eternity; but in each universe, on each planet, and in each individual life, this nature is modified, qualified, and perchance marred by the acts, the mistakes, and the disloyalties of the creatures of the evolutionary systems and universes; and therefore must nature ever be of a changing mood, whimsical withal, though stable underneath, and varied in accordance with the operating procedures of a local universe.
p57:1 4:2.4 Nature is the perfection of Paradise divided by the incompletion, evil, and sin of the unfinished universes. This quotient is thus expressive of both the perfect and the partial, of both the eternal and the temporal. Continuing evolution modifies nature by augmenting the content of Paradise perfection and by diminishing the content of the evil, error, and disharmony of relative reality.
p57:2 4:2.5 God is not personally present in nature or in any of the forces of nature, for the phenomenon of nature is the superimposition of the imperfections of progressive evolution and, sometimes, the consequences of insurrectionary rebellion, upon the Paradise foundations of God's universal law. As it appears on such a world as Urantia, nature can never be the adequate expression, the true representation, the faithful portrayal, of an all-wise and infinite God.

p57:3 4:2.6 Nature, on your world, is a qualification of the laws of perfection by the evolutionary plans of the local universe. What a travesty to worship nature because it is in a limited, qualified sense pervaded by God; because it is a phase of the universal and, therefore, divine power! Nature also is a manifestation of the unfinished, the incomplete, the imperfect outworkings of the development, growth, and progress of a universe experiment in cosmic evolution.
p57:4 4:2.7 The apparent defects of the natural world are not indicative of any such corresponding defects in the character of God. Rather are such observed imperfections merely the inevitable stop-moments in the exhibition of the ever-moving reel of infinity picturization. It is these very defect-interruptions of perfection-continuity which make it possible for the finite mind of material man to catch a fleeting glimpse of divine reality in time and space. The material manifestations of divinity appear defective to the evolutionary mind of man only because mortal man persists in viewing the phenomena of nature through natural eyes, human vision unaided by morontia mota or by revelation, its compensatory substitute on the worlds of time.
p57:5 4:2.8 And nature is marred, her beautiful face is scarred, her features are seared, by the rebellion, the misconduct, the misthinking of the myriads of creatures who are a part of nature, but who have contributed to her disfigurement in time. No, nature is not God. Nature is not an object of worship.

This is though quotes from the Urantia Book.
If anyone wishes to be able to read it online in order to question more you can find it at www.truthbook.com


K, i'll leave you all alone now.

Hope i wasn't' a bother.

Blessings

Angelic_spirit ( newbie )

[angelic_spirit]

To answer the question of why wouldn't God step in.

My answer is this, as this is my understanding.

For the most part God does not step in, occasionally he does, and with that you have "miracles".

But this is a mortal life. This world is evolving, and just as the ICE age wasn't the greatest neither is alot of the devastation that we have to endure.

But if God was to intervene with Nature then it would eventually cause him to have a hand in man's free will, which would not be true "free will".

? Right?

If we are to be truly on our own, given complete freedom to choose in our spirituality then we cannot be "sheltered" at anytime.

But God is there to bring people to create goodness out of a disaster on the world, such as all the relief aid donated.

That is my opinion. I'm learning just as you though

Angelic