DEATH AND GOD!

I decided to do some research into the purported existence of god. Surely the following statistics prove there has to be a god. One has to agree that jc does, in fact, exist if only Tsunami deaths are considered (god works in mysterious ways!)!
Were they all sinners? Nonbelievers and non-christians were, for sure, sinners!!! But, he also took some of the faithful as a sign of his love and mercy! No matter how young they were. Even the unborn children!..... By drowning and/or crushing them! His love and mercy are boundless!!!Hopefully, this will end the debate over the existence of a god. COMMON SENSE (Reason, logic, rational judgment, etc.), proves he/she/it or whatever does exist! How anyone can deny his existence is beyond me!Please feel free to post additional statistics which add to the creditability of his existence and of his mercy and love for “his children”.---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an evolving table. Records of tsunami deaths are very commonly mixed with earthquake deaths, so notable tsunami events are surely missing from this table, and some numbers here may include deaths not caused by tsunamis. There also have been catastrophic waves recorded in India, attributed to storm surges, that may be tsunamis. The table reflects official compilations and has not been checked in detail. All large round numbers are approximate.10 Deadliest Pacific Tsunamis
Date Source Deaths
22 May 1782 Taiwan 40000
20 Sep 1498 Japan 31000
28 Oct 1707 Japan 30000
15 Jun 1896 Japan 27122
13 Aug 1868 Chile 25674
27 May 1293 Japan 23024
21 May 1792 Japan 15030
29 Aug 1741 Hokkaido 15000
24 Apr 1771 Ryukyu Islands 13486
May 1765 China 1000010 Deadliest Indian Ocean Tsunamis
Date Source Deaths
26 Dec 2004 Sumatra 225000
27 Aug 1883 Java/Sumatra 36500
26 Jun 1941 Andaman Sea 5000
3 Sep 1861 Sumatra 1700
16 Jun 1819 Arabian Sea 1543
28 Nov 1945 Arabian Sea 1000+
16 Feb 1861 Sumatra 905
2 Apr 1762 Bay of Bengal 500
19 Aug 1977 Sunda Islands 500
4 Jan 1907 Sumatra 40010 Deadliest Atlantic Tsunamis
Date Source Deaths
1 Nov 1755 Portugal 60000
7 Jun 1692 Jamaica 2000
30 Jan 1607 England/Wales 2000
3 Oct 1780 Jamaica 300
7 May 1842 Haiti 300
6 Dec 1917 Nova Scotia 200
4 Aug 1946 Dominican Rep 100
7 Sep 1882 Panama 65
11 Oct 1918 Puerto Rico 42
18 Nov 1929 Newfoundland 2910 Deadliest Mediterranean Sea Tsunamis
Date Source Deaths
1410 BCE Greek islands 100000
28 Dec 1908 Italy 10000+
6 Feb 1783 Italy 1500+
11 Jan 1693 Italy 1000+
20 Sep 1867 Greece 12
16 Oct 1979 France 10
13 Dec 1990 Italy 6
9 Jul 1956 Greece 4
20 Oct 1859 Greece 2
11 Sep 1930 Italy 2 Edited by AdminPD, : Topic Clarification

I appreciate you taking the time to rewrite your post, but this still isn't the caliber we are looking for at EvC. But I am going to make a small exception here by promoting this.I'm almost certain that my counterparts will disagree with my decision to promote it, but I want to see if you can take this anywhere.I should caution you, though, that this decision is tentative. There is somewhat of a chance that it will closed. I just want you to be aware of that.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No, I doubt very much that any non-theists will lose sleep over this. And here is why:What you have asserted is unfalsifiable-- meaning, no matter what evidence you gather or don't gather, no one will be able to prove you wrong, because you have set up imaginary rules in your own mind.You have set it up in such a way that no matter if 1 person dies or 5,000 dies, that somehow is evidence of God. How exactly is that an argument in defense of God?You have set up all the rules and qualifiers for what determines God's existence, none of which can be corroborated. That's not how it works in debate, nor was what you presented problematic for those of an atheistic mindset.You allege that both the unrighteous and the righteous dying together is evidence of God's mercy and fairness. But you have no way of knowing if God specifically caused such winds and waves, or if He merely allowed them to be.Now, Jesus said that He sends rains on both the righteous and the unrighteous, and as a Christian, I certainly take that to heart. But what you are positing is not proof of anything. At the most, you are proving what you want to prove as it was purposed in your heart, rather than presenting unequivocally evidence that supports God's existence.Finally, I feel somewhat obligated to inform you that the nature of God is not a provable fact. Yes, I believe there is fantastic, reasonable evidence to assume God's existence based on many different angles, however, there is no 100% way of knowing beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists-- at least not in the same sense that one could prove whether or not their shoelace was untied. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed typosEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I think that you have made a mistake in assuming that the post is sincerely intended to be an argument for God. Not only is the reasoning from the 'evidence' to the conclusion lacking - there is more than hint of sarcasm:

I'm going to agree with nemesis_juggernaut on this one. (mark that down nem)What you have here is called the logical fallacy of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc coincidental correlation ... at best (if you think you have some kind of correlation that is) ...... and just a compilation of purely natural catastrophic events with no correlation to behavior or any other link to an assumed specific (vengeful) creator ... at worst.In otherwords this is no argument.In fact my first impression of this topic was that it was so far out for logic and rational construction that it had to be a put on (and the original inclusion of the "Big Turnip" didn't help disabuse me of this impression).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If that's the case, then the OP is trolling. And my mercies extend far less than God's.I'll give it a little time to see if anything productive comes of it.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I would've thought that it's obvious that the O.P. is meant to be sarcastic/ironic, nemesis. The guy doesn't believe in God.I don't think it makes a good argument against God, though. It's just saying "why is there injustice and cruelty in nature", which has been said so many times before. Nothing new.I did find the stats interesting, but from a scientific/historical point of view, and because I happen to know some of the areas where some of the most famous ones have happened.

Well, you may be right about that. And if so, I'm apparently not the only one to have not picked up on the sarcasm.Like I said earlier, if the OP turns out to be a troll, then we'll just send him back under the bridge for a permanent vacation.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

There is no proof of God. No matter how you slice and dice it, these are the terms of the arrangement. Everyone will remain free to choose their own path in life accordingly. Proof of God's existence would offset this and void the ignorance we inherently possess as imperfect beings.The sooner you accept this, the better off you will be. Edited by pbee, : typo

QUOTE: There is no proof of God. No matter how you slice and dice it, these are the terms of the arrangement. Everyone will remain free to choose their own path in life accordingly. Proof of God's existence would offset this and void the ignorance we inherently possess as imperfect beings.
The sooner you accept this, the better off you will be.-----------------------------------------------------------
My reply:I got it a long time ago. I've been an atheist for the last 30 years. I wrote the post with tongue in cheek! Edited by fjp8000, : Wrong wording.Edited by fjp8000, : Wanted to include the post in for my reply

First, I agree that no one can prove that god does not exist. However, it is probable that he does not exist.
Secondly, I was under the impression that god's hand is in everything? Thus, it is his decision as to who dies and who lives.
Third, the entire point of the post was to ask, "How can a merciful & loving god, IF HE EXISTS, "pour rain" on the innocent and the faithful in such sadistic acts of violence. For example: Consider the hundreds of worshipers crushed to death in a church in Peru during its last earthquake. Some of which died agonizing deaths; including children and the unborn. OR, the six million Jews (His chosen people) that were killed during WW II? Your answer may be, "god works in mysterious ways"? This is a standard cop out for anything that "god" does which defies common sense.

Seriously, it became obvious to me that the post was sarcastic only after having read the first 2 sentences. In fact, there is no way I can interpret that post without thinking it's entirely sarcastic.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

There was a group of jews in Auswitz that put god on trial for abandoning his people. After the found him guilty, they went ahead and did their daily prayers.The point is praying and believing in god seems to be more for the people and less for the deity they prayed to (whether god exists or not). It's only people like riverrat and nemjug that think we are created for the sole purpose of kissing his holy arse.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

QUOTE: I would've thought that it's obvious that the O.P. is meant to be sarcastic/ironic, nemesis. The guy doesn't believe in God.
I don't think it makes a good argument against God, though. It's just saying "why is there injustice and cruelty in nature", which has been said so many times before. Nothing new._____________________________________________________________My reply:I am astonished that anyone did not see the sarcasm & cynicism! Is blind faith that BLIND?You refer to nature: Yes, there is cruelty in nature, but we supposedly are god's children. Are these (My original Post) some of the ways he shows us that he is merciful and loving? OR are they examples of "free will"? The hands off attitude in nature? Although, whenever something good happens, religious people always give god the credit.God is omniscient. Therefore, he "knows" what will happen in advance. Right? If so, what is the point? Does he just like the fun of the game?OR, just maybe, he is not an "ALL KNOWING GOD"? Here is the paradox (A noun: An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. "Can an omniscient god, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?" IE: If he is omniscient he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means his is not omniscient!!!!!