HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Can random events happen if all depends on the action of almighty God?

A bomb explodes outside your house when you are at the supermarket. Your house is reduced to rubble.  You say that if you had been at home you would be dead. Can you or should you say that if there is a God? What if God was so determined to keep you alive that being at home the bomb would have done no harm?  What if God's plan was that you would not be at home so there was no if?

 

People seem to like the thought that we are puppets in a divine scheme one day and the next day they want to think that God himself takes risks with you and has made risk possible by allowing real accidents to happen.  So God can create randomness and some of us end up as victims of it.  The notion of a God who takes the risk of sending his son to die for you risks his love by offering to you when you are in danger of rejecting it is sheer sentimentalism and is impossible ESPECIALLY if there is a God. Yet for people of Christian faith it would be the main attraction.  The question of if accidents are real or not is an extremely important one for people suffer because of them and must be thought through and not treated so disrespectfully by flip-floppers.

 

Random

 

For something to be random, it seems that nothing must cause it to behave in a certain way or a number of ways.  But something always does - this is not the time to discuss that though.

 

The best understanding is that random means something is happening blindly. It is unintended. It is accidental. It is not predictable. Whatever happens then is not happening because it has a divine purpose. Do not make the mistake of thinking that randomness is just unpredictability. That would mean that an event is not random if you know how it happened. Knowing how it happened has nothing to do with making it random. Randomness means that something is taking place for no INTENDED reason. Do not take your mind off the fact that randomness does not exist except as something that happens without it being intended by anyone.

 

If random meant something was popping into existence from nothing that would mean there is no need for the notion of a creator God. If God created it, it would not be random.

 

Argument that God can cause all and cause events to be random:

 

Random means God is not involved. Or does it?  If all things come from God then God is involved.  He has far more to do with what something does than it has.  If something acts random it is still not random if there is a God.  The randomness is just a divine deception.

 

To understand what we mean by creation it is helpful to see the doctrine as saying that God has more to do with what we are and do than we do. Creation being distant enough from God to diminish his responsibility for what happens in it is out. I may choose to hit a ball with a stick but God enables me to do it and choose it and enables the influences that cause me to do it. My own part if any is not even worth thinking bout. And if I make a choice I make it because of God’s assistance and creative power and not against it.

 

Believers say God can create creatures and things that he cannot control so that they can do random things. They would tell you, "God causes people and nature to be able to cause things themselves. So God's being a cause is not in competition with anything that has the power to be a cause. It empowers it to cause. God then is the cause of all things one way but this is compatible with you being the real cause of the decisions you make and the actions you perform."

 

You have a crate of wine. If you cause others to cause their drunkenness that does not make you any less of a cause. God causing you to cause things is still God causing things. If he makes you then he is the only important cause.

 

Continual Creation

 

God is supposed to have started the universe off so God is called the first cause. If there is a first cause that start all other causes and started the universe then what? Christians say that this first cause idea does not matter so much as the belief that God creates now for creation is not a past event but a continuing one. Yet the first cause looks like a first cause as in making a universe that was started off and wound up and left to run by itself. What does that say? That the first cause was not God or a creator. If a universe can do without God continually creating it it does not need him to start it off.

 

Fine-tuned

Believers might say that all can be random but the clever design of the universe and its being fined tuned for life are not random. 

 

The universe is supposedly fine-tuned so that life on earth can happen. If God and randomness can agree, then it is possible that there could be a God and still a natural explanation for fine-tuning.

 

Biology

 

In evolutionary biology, what does random mean? Though evolution is believed to have started by chance it is not kept going by chance. The pattern came about by chance and so chance does not need to and cannot direct evolution. So randomness then is largely not about chance but means that changes happen regardless of whether they are useful to the creature or not. Believers in God say that God not chance rigged it so that the pattern would appear. Unbelievers say the pattern was created by chance but is not a pile of chances itself.

 

Can we choose one or the other? If so then God is not important. God is not God. God to be God cannot be a menu item.

 

Religion answers that God as an intelligent being is the only answer for random generates only disorder.

 

It is not true that chance creates only what we would see as useless chaos. It can cause a framework.

 

If God is directing evolution then we should speak of intention. Intentional guidance of evolution means evolution has nothing to do with chance.

 

Argument that God and randomness are compatible

If God is the one true cause of all things then what room does all that leave for chance or randomness? Religion cannot say that God causes chance events to be chance. But sometimes it does say it. It is pretending that randomness can happen even in a universe kept in existence and ruled by almighty God. Religion likes this doctrine for it helps it face how science shows that the way the universe works is as if nothing intelligent is behind it at all. The notion that the universe looks designed so there must be a designing God is going out of fashion.

 

Refutation:

 

Randomness only seems to happen. An event happens the way it would if nothing at all were causing it. But in fact countless and unimaginable causes are making it produce the result. What matters to us is not that the event truly is random but that it is as useful as something that is really random and it must be down to blind forces. It looks random to us for there are too many causes involved for us to see them. But it is important that none of these causes be intelligent or intentional.

 

Free will
 
God causes all things and thus how they will behave. You have free will then because of God and not in spite of him which means there is no getting away from his control. A God who permits you to act is still controlling.
 
The doctrine that there are no accidents
 
A tremendous infinite sequence of events takes place thus enabling you to enjoy a coffee in x street at x time with x your friend at x o clock on x planet in x solar system ad infinitum. One major thing was how dinosaurs had to become extinct by what looks like an accident in order for man to even appear. Some might say the whole past is about making your coffee date happen! They might say, "Why not? The whole universe works together. There are no real accidents." If there are no real accidents then they are quite logical.
 
People fear that which will never be controlled so they run after miracles and see them as signs that there are forces that can take control and which probably will at some point.  They think belief in miracles helps their sense of meaning in life. Belief in miracles will not give you a real sense of meaning for they are said to be beyond the powers of the universe and an intrusion. It is the assumption you make that the universe won't always be left to do its own thing, but that benign intervention will take control that gives meaning. Most of the meaning comes not from belief in the miracles but in the assumptions you leap to. You find meaning in the mundane more than you realise. After all you spend most of your week thinking little about magic and miracles. Realise it and your problems with meaning in life will lessen or evaporate.
 
When somebody commits suicide, religious people have no problem saying, "She couldn't live without her job. He couldn't live without his child." That is really telling people that if they think they have no hope then they are right! They show at times like that what they really think! And they are the people who are part of a religion that tells atheists that they cannot have hope! If we really think life drove a person to suicide, then it follows that suicide is to be responded to like an accidental death. The thought that your loved ones will not take it personally if you take your own life will only encourage you. You will reason that people have to suffer whatever time you die anyway so their pain will not put you off. Religion has the same flaws as the hypocritical society it emerges from. It is no help.
 
Prayer and chance
 
Believers seem happy with prayer though they must see it works no better than chance does. Do they want to believe that God uses chance to answer prayer? They act that way. There must be a buzz in imagining that chance is on your side. And it is arrogant because if chance is chance it cannot be on anybody's side. The religious divinisation of chance is what religion's faith with its terrible doctrines is based on. For example, Hell and original sin and the goodness of people being left to suffer by God. Those doctrines when based on an evil foundation must be evil themselves even if they would be okay on another foundation.

 

Risk and evil

 

When atheists say they disbelieve in God why would they reject belief?

Is it because they find God illogical?

Is it because they cannot think that a really good God can let evil happen?

 

Evil by definition is that which cannot be allowed to happen so believers water it down to fit it to the God shaped size.  And natural/accidental evil makes moral evil possible and makes it a temptation.  You don't get anywhere by separating them and saying that natural evil just happens so it is not an issue.

 

One reason evil cannot be allowed is that it seeks chaos and randomness.  It is disorder.  It is risk and risk opens the door to other risks you cannot even imagine.

 

 

 


Religion will say we are arguing that evil is that which is incompatible with God so if there is a God there is no evil. But evil exists so there is no God.  They will say we are defining evil in such a way that it cannot fit a God.  But we are defining evil in a way that does not fit good.  If God is good then it follows that evil and God cannot fit.  It is not so much about God as about good.

 

Could God want to be irrelevant?  Hypothetically he would if it meant we could be better people.   Christianity evilly says God wants the heart 100% but the hypothetical thing is still there.  It makes it wrong to give all the heart to God for that means you will commit to him as the greatest good even if it means harm to all other people.

 

Keller wrote “If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment” (page 26).  In fact as we have seen this view is incoherent and over-simplistic.  And as the natural is supposedly made of the supernatural it follows that both a believer and an unbeliever can think morality comes from the universe.  They only differ on what they think the universe is.

 

Morality is a form of sight. Even if the image you see is misleading the image is real. You still see an image. To say there is no reason to help a baby in real danger of being torn to pieces if there is no morality ignores the fact that there is more to life than morality. It is immoral actually to disagree with that! To say you need an answer to why you must help the baby is just admitting you don't care and need to be talked into helping.

 

Does God use evil to do good because we brought evil into the world or would he use it even if we did not? Is it better to do the former or the latter? 

 

If God is opposed to evil why does that matter to us?

 

Good means helping. It makes no sense to say that to say there is no God is to deny that good exists. The believers are only putting you off being good by telling you stuff like that.

 

The definition of good is that there must be no advantage in it for yourself and that you are doing it for it is best for another. So doing good for a good advantage for yourself is bad. But the advantage is certainly a kind of good. No doubt about that. So God has nothing to do with it. What good is is built into it and even God cannot change that. Even bad assumes that good exists. So the fear that without God we will not believe in good or be good is just scaremongering.

 

The Christians assume before they look at the question of God and evil being compatible or incompatible that they can be fitted.  That assumption is itself evil.  It is not a matter for assuming.  You need evidence and logic to see if they fit.  You need it to be a strong case for it is real suffering of real people we are talking about.

 

The idea that no supreme power cares fits the evidence.  That cannot be dismissed.  Believers have to engage in great contortions to argue that the power cares.  They end up saying evil is a mystery.  This contradicts sanity.  It is like saying that Queen Victoria being the Ripper fits the evidence and its a mystery how she seemed to be in the palace during one murder.  You cannot argue that the non-existence of a loving God fitting the evidence is a coincidence.  That is evil and irrational and cruel for it is people who suffer.

The assumption behind both is that if something ought not to happen then God if good and powerful enough cannot let it happen.

Believers agree but say that it does not follow that everything that happens should really be perfect.  They say that some evils such as the pain of toothache are good when it drives you to get help.  But look at what they are saying.  They are admitting that there are evils that should not be allowed to happen.  If these evils do not include God making innocent children immune to killer viruses then the argument is lost.

But see what the believers are doing. They are saying it is better for suffering to exist than for God to be partly bad. They are saying it is better for God not to be all-powerful. It is absurd to say that concern for believing in God’s love or power matters more than human suffering.

To look at suffering and decide that nothing proves it is incompatible with perfect love and is itself evil. It is using the suffering and degrading the person. It is not about you and here you are making yourself biased to assess it as agreeable with God.

Should we do good because God commands us to or invites us to even if what is good or bad has nothing to do with what God wants? Duns Scotus said yes.  The correct answer is no.  If something is good it does not matter if it is commanded or not.  Just do it.  To say there is a God just so that you can feel commanded to do good shows you care about being commanded to do good not doing good.

It is obvious that if seriously bad things happen human nature has the right to judge the doers as malicious or uncaring or both. This right is NOT IMPACTED by the doers being in the right. A necessary evil has to accept being judged as unnecessary and that is collateral. It has to permit that for evil is so bad that it needs a devil’s advocate even if the evil is unavoidable. That acceptance goes with something being a necessary evil. Thus a religion telling you it is a sin to condemn God and that you should not curse God when people are badly hurt is violating your dignity. The Lord’s Prayer saying to God that his will be done is an insult.

The best we can do when thinking of of a moral law that cannot allow an exception under any circumstances is “Killing innocent children for fun is never in any way right or partly right.”


But what about killing innocent children with viruses is never right no matter what the justification?  God cannot ask us to agree with the rule about the killing and then ask us to agree as human beings with what he does.  Even if he is right that is not the point.  We are human and have to look at it in a human way.  The human way works when allowed to and nothing else is as good.  If God made us to be human then it is evil of him to expect anything different.  We have the right to fear and oppose religious believers no matter how good they act j


If an atheist assumes God is impotent he is refusing to see God’s good and holy plan at work and saying suffering is useless and intolerable.  The thought that suffering is useless is not a despairing or hopeless thought.  Its being useless is the very reason we have to try and be stronger than it and get through it. Thus there is no justification for telling that person to believe in God and to trust in God. It is not even relevant.  The atheists would judge believers as unable to diagnose evil correctly and thus of ruining the medicine for it.  The believers judge atheists as hating evil too much.  I would not call atheists bad for that!  It makes them the ones with the best potential for goodness.  Believers in God are adopting a belief that represents and feeds bigotry.

Randomness makes God a deceiver for it is superficial randomness. It is not random at all but a lie. Why random? Is it to let bad things happen? Genuine respect for goodness does not exist. Randomness is making an amoral neutral act with a neutral amoral intention

Random makes God cruel

If there are a million events and one of them is random and the rest are not then that is absurd. The one cannot be random.  The other events If the event kills then God is responsible. If there are two random events then there is randomness. The more events that are random the more things are left to happen by sheer chance and without any purpose. If God allows three random events and people die then he has not got total responsibility for that but a lot. If he allows four then he is less responsible. Even if he allows a billion random events he still has some responsibility.  Somebody is still dead and everybody is at risk of being killed and its because he chose to make it possible and decreed how random it would be.  Would a cancer doctor be good if he did not help person x but set it up for chance to do the trick.

The risk

The random can plunge you into great happiness or untold misery. Random is seeking something good but at a risk. Wanting riches or a bicycle or any thing is not worth the risk. If you seek them at such a great risk then you are being self-destructive or putting what is okay for you before what is safer or better for you. And praying for a bike for others is invoking the random into the life of another and thus is other-destructive. You even have people who invoke the random for others but they would not want it for themselves.  You cannot risk yourself without risking others.  A risk will strike somebody else if you elude it.  With all these facts to hand, is it any wonder that some of the most prayerful people who ever lived have been the most toxic and the most dangerous? Is it any wonder they are aflame with violent religious passion that leaves many innocent people dead in its wake?


 
Conclusion
 
God and random are incompatible. We need to believe that accidents really are accidents so belief in God must be discarded.  When we say something terrible in the past should not have happened we mean and only mean that the forces of chance should have fell in a better random order.  And if free agents with free will did the harm it does not matter at all now for they cannot go back and choose differently.  What matters is that the bad thing happened and sadly cannot be undone.  The past being left in the past is a principle and it is the truth for the past really is in the past even if we try for it not to be.  Deliberately bad acts are