The handiwork of God

In other words, people need to take precautions against attacks on their safety by god.

You see, the only reason people need to take precautions against earthquakes is because the earth is such that there are earthquakes. If there were a good and powerful god, then it would not make the world so dangerous for people to live in.

So, to say that 'God is the creator, thus earthquakes are his fault' is to criticize a human concept based upon another insufficient human concept. At best, it is objecting to the language, but the language of God is, obviously, not God Himself.

Not at all. In other words, people need to realize that the Earth is exactly as it is - that the tide moves in and out, ect.

How can you move from earthquakes being a natural feature of planet earth to earth quakes being an aggressive assault upon humans by God? The earth having natural feature X is not the same as natural feature X being a weapon used by God against human kind.

And there is also a great deal of trouble saying God can attack human kind, a great deal of trouble even saying that God is the creator. The matter is not so simple.



How? Can you imagine what the earth would be like if earthquakes were not possible? The ramifications of an earthquake free world upon the process of evolution, for example?

Now let's get into the trouble with calling God the creator, saying of God that He can attack humans, even saying that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Because this is the heart of the matter. God is not any of these things - when we say that God is omniscient, et al, we are using fallible human language to describe God, and God is simply beyond human language. All human language can do is point to the reality of God, but that language cannot adequately describe God - so God is the creator, but not really, He is greater than that. The reality of God being beyond human language, rests in the experience of God. This is why the spiritual path is not merely an intellectual exercise, but a practice of rituals and prayer.

So, to say that 'God is the creator, thus earthquakes are his fault' is to criticize a human concept based upon another insufficient human concept. At best, it is objecting to the language, but the language of God is, obviously, not God Himself.

So, I suppose that to say that God is the creator and it is his doing that we have lovely sunsets, and rain to slake our thirst, and the Sun to warm us is to praise a "human concept based on another insufficient human concept".

For if we do not condemn God for earthquakes and the evils that arise from them, then why should we praise God for the Sun and the good that comes from the Sun? Fair is fair.

How? Can you imagine what the earth would be like if earthquakes were not possible? The ramifications of an earthquake free world upon the process of evolution, for example?

Consider that earthquakes are the result of plate tectonics and tectonic activity. Without continuing tectonic activity the world would covered with water due to erosion.

Sure.



Go back to your own post, regarding Leibniz and Pope. Why ask me when you already know the answer?

If our fault-finding with God is unjustified because of the insufficiency of our conceptions, then how is our praise of God justified.

OP: Hey, that's the handi-work of humankind not God. Get it right if you're going to blame someone.

Consider that earthquakes are the result of plate tectonics and tectonic activity. Without continuing tectonic activity the world would covered with water due to erosion.

God should be humbling for us, He should not be humbled to us. Otherwise we're misunderstanding this concept called God. Which is easy to do, misunderstand. But then again, God isn't supposed to be easy to understand, God is suppose to challenge. That disturbs many people, especially people who like to think of themselves as being so damn smart. Instead of taking the challenge, instead of humbly accepting that they do not understand something and that they will have to work hard, with honest diligence, they call it all nonsense and dismiss.

According to my understanding of Balance, yes. They just don't know it.

Consider that earthquakes are the result of plate tectonics and tectonic activity. Without continuing tectonic activity the world would covered with water due to erosion.

There are many earthquakes on other planets, yes? Venus is quite out of balance (although the crust has thickened to the point where there aren't any earthquakes), and there haven't been any people living there. Of course, I don't know what you mean by balance.

According to my understanding of Balance, yes. They just don't know it.

You are imagining an impotent god if it could not make a planet that does not have those problems. For one thing, there need not be so much water on a planet. A being too stupid to think of something better than this planet isn't much of a god.

The hardest riddles to understand are the ones without any answer. Or perhaps the question of "what is the nature of god?" is like one of those zen koans, which have disconcertingly simple answers.

Maybe the most challenging answer to accept is that there is no god.

Of course some people have no problem with rejecting god specifically, so you could replace god with "ulterior meaning".

...
So until you can prove that God could have created it differently the assumption must be that God created it exactly as was necessary.

For a deeper look into some of these issues check out this site: Does the Presence of Natural Evil Argue Against the Existence of God? Why Natural Evil Must Exist

The universe must operate through reliable physical laws, since it would be impossible for sentient creatures to make sense of a universe in which the physical laws were randomly applied. The Bible explicitly says that God fixed the laws that govern the universe.

No one has proposed that it should be decided randomly when god intervenes and when god does not. If god prevented earthquakes that harm people, no one would even know that he was intervening, so it would not impact our ability to make sense of the world. Also, even if intervening were really a problem, then the Bible stories about god intervening must be false. The fool who wrote that article though does not see that he is taking a self-contradictory approach, as he uses the Bible to support his ideas, when the Bible tells us that he is in fact wrong about God intervening.