Gregor,
Time to put up or shut up? Why?
According to your world view, what do I owe you except respect and tolerance of your beliefs to the extent that my ethos allows? And if I owe you that, what do you owe me according to your world view?
All you have to defend your "belief" is vague stuff like, "How could a banana have just evolved?" or some other trite crap.
In point of fact, there is only one human to whom I owe a defense of my beliefs. I owe myself a defense. I owe a defense for my hope which I will be happy to give you anytime you ask. But I don't owe you a defense for my beliefs. My defense to myself of my beliefs does not involve a banana or some other trite crap.
I do not believe it is possible to prove to someone else that God exists, while I do believe it is possible to prove to someone else that it is a possibility (and not the God of gaps).
I find it funny when I read comments like the one from apfergus, who is deeply involved in the field of physical sciences of subatomic particles. Quantum physics is the frontier and apfergus says when you get to the level of gluons (and presumably other bosons) you are required to suspend disbelief in order to accept the way physical reality behaves.
How, exactly, is this different than faith?
But, I will take a rational approach to your question:
Why does "god" permit evil, wickedness and tragic misfortune??
Because he rarely ever intervenes in the process he started. Scientifically, can you actually give an objective instance of something that is "evil," "wicked," or "trajic." Permit me a brief thought exercise.
Suppose Adolf Hitler was the baby who drowned in a bucket of water. From the perspective of little Adolf's parents, tragedy. From the perspective of neighbors, "WHY God, oh WHY did little Adolf have to die?" From the perspective of many holocaust survivors, they very much wish Adolf had drowned in a bucket with four inches of water as a baby. From the perspective of other potential victims of planned genocide that were unsuccessful because of the lessons learned through the example of the Nazi regime, they should be quite pleased that Adolf did not die.
Which would have been a good outcome if we look back at the history after 200,000 years? Which the evil outcome? What is "tragedy" in any objective sense when you have no idea the world we would live in had the "tragedy" not occurred? This is not an argument in favor of nihilism, merely an objective recognition of the fact that to know what harm is requires an ability to know a history that never occurred.
Now, suppose that there is a being who exists outside our plane of existence, outside our capacity to accurately measure, outside our discovered "frequency" range, if you will. Suppose this being is able to dispense with the constraint of time as it pertains to our plane of existence, much the same way you are able to scratch your nose when it itches. Possessing that ability does not mean you must scratch your nose at all times.
Now that we have these primary suppositions in place, my answer to you would be that such "bad things" are allowed because of a difference in perspective. From his perspective it isn't an evil.
I would enjoy reading your response.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
