How can a loving God allow cancer to exist

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Reasoning. You?

1. What reasoning?

2. If God doesn't exist and you are not the product of an intelligent being, why do you trust your own reasoning?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
1. What reasoning?

2. If God doesn't exist and you are not the product of an intelligent being, why do you trust your own reasoning?

You mean, my evolved reasoning?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What would be your objection if the existence of an uncaused first cause were suggested?

Lack of reason. To be fair, since things can't get started, clearly eternity is unreasonable also.

Therefore the gods of my choice must be real. Right?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What would be your objection if the existence of an uncaused first cause were suggested?

If it wasn't caused, then it didn't happen.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
According to Ghost an innocent child dying of cancer is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist.

So my first question to Ghost is why is a child dying of cancer incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God? Because he says so?

Every single person is living on borrowed time.

Originally posted by @sonship

If I had the power stop a child from getting cancer but didn't, what would you think of me? That I'm a good loving person?

The argument against God's existence because of the existence of tragedy and misfortune I think is a strong argument. But it is not strong enough to cause me to turn to Atheism. This would primarily be because I re ...[text shortened]... low in misfortune a person descends, the arms of God can get beneath that person to uphold them.

Of course you would reject such arguments because you are totally bible addled. Your pervasive programming will prevent you from EVER seeing the truth, which is religions are ALL 100% man made and the pithy sayings in the bible and other religious documents are just the result of creative humans which you would deny the possibility human creativity could EVER result in books as profound as the bible. Profound they may be but they are ALL written by men and some women and you find nothing wrong with statements saying men are worth 50 shekels but women only 30. NOTHING wrong with that in your philosophy. Or the idea that a god would resort to killing off 100% of all land animals to get rid of some nasty humans by causing a world wide flood.

Funny about that fairy tale: Ken Ham built what is thought to be a dup of the Ark. Think is, it cost 150 MILLION to build and took 2 solid YEARS using the latest in building machinery, yet in spite of that, 8 people in the bible built it in a few weeks maybe a couple of months using axes and hammers. Doesn't that make you think just a LITTLE about the veracity of those fairy tales?

And think about the discoveries of genetic diversity. It has been shown humans are the ones with low diversity, since genetic analysis shows modern humans at one point in their history were down to maybe 20 people MAX and ALL of us stem from those 20.

Yet the same diversity analysis CLEARLY shows land animals to have MUCH higher levels of genetic diversity, just the opposite of what you would expect given the fairy tale that only 2 reproducing animals of various species came onboard the Ark.

Genetic analysis all by itself shows the flood fairy tale to be bonkers.

And on top of that, the biblical literalists insist DINOSAURS were also present on the Ark. Good luck getting to tame a T Rex or Titanosuar (130 feet long). So suppose you did all that, what the HELL would you feed it for a month or more on such a boat? To say nothing of Apatasours, Archaeopteryx, Brachiosaurus and the like. AND what then happened that all of the Dinosaurs died but all the land animals survived?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You mean, my evolved reasoning?

If you say your reason is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won’t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now thereby demonstrating that your reasoning now is really wrong?

Originally posted by @apathist
Lack of reason. To be fair, since things can't get started, clearly eternity is unreasonable also.

Therefore the gods of my choice must be real. Right?

What other alternative is more reasonable?

Originally posted by @apathist
If it wasn't caused, then it didn't happen.

That only applies to something that has a beginning. If God's existence is eternal it needs no cause.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That only applies to something that has a beginning. If God's existence is eternal it needs no cause.

If God can be eternal, why not the universe? Why are you so willing to believe one has no beginning, but not the other?

Please lay out your reasoning.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
If God can be eternal, why not the universe? Why are you so willing to believe one has no beginning, but not the other?

Please lay out your reasoning.

Good luck with that. You don't NEED reasoning if you are biblically addled.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
If God can be eternal, why not the universe? Why are you so willing to believe one has no beginning, but not the other?

Please lay out your reasoning.

All the evidence seems to suggest that the universe has a beginning. So the universe needs a cause if it has a beginning. God by definition has no beginning and no end therefore requires no cause.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning..."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Originally posted by @dj2becker
God by definition has no beginning and no end therefore requires no cause.



http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Are you saying that the attributes of your God depend on a definition?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Are you saying that the attributes of your God depend on a definition?

No they depend upon His nature. His nature is defined in his revelation to us.

Originally posted by @rbhill
Every single person is living on borrowed time.

I'd say given time more so than borrowed, either way it isn't our time as if we own it.