Natural disasters
-
Nature is cruel? That's like jumping into a fire and saying "Fire is cruel".
Jump off a cliff? "Gravity is cruel".
Cut yourself? "Sharp objects are cruel"
You are responsible for your own actions, and part of it is to make sure you do not set up camp where there are tsunamis. Tough luck for you if you foolishly stay anyway.
-
Nature is cruel? That's like jumping into a fire and saying "Fire is cruel".
Jump off a cliff? "Gravity is cruel".
Cut yourself? "Sharp objects are cruel"
You are responsible for your own actions, and part of it is to make sure you do not set up camp where there are tsunamis. Tough luck for you if you foolishly stay anyway.
that's different!
as if i am gonna jump in a fire, or jump off a cliff, or cut my self.
As for all those people that were affected by the tsunami, was it foolish of them to live there? where are all these people suppose to go?
i live in England, alhamdulillah we don't have horrific weather here, it's just cold, too bad for people that suffer from s.a.d. though.
-
Well, considering humanity has done the equivalent of just that by setting up camp near a place that shall get battered by natural disasters, and by destroying the balance of wealth such that some 80% of wealth is owned by 10% of people, it is not different. Try not being so irrational...
As for all those people, they were not foolish, they were born into it. Their ancestors were foolish, and they're paying the price )
-
Peace Genteel, AaRoN, OPF, all,
In my personal understanding, I believe I can easily draw the line between natural and unnatural, in that, the difference being what occurs between man-made and what is "god-made".
Fair enough. I agree, but I'm also exploring the other side of the fence, ie, "man-made" is under the umbrella of "god-made".
where i live they seed for hailstorms... to make it so the hail doesn't do as much damage as it could... they put some sort of particles in the sky and it forces hail to gather into smaller balls or somethin... i dunno, look it up...
Can you pm me in the right direction?
As for all those people, they were not foolish, they were born into it. Their ancestors were foolish, and they're paying the price
That about sums up my position on the chain of effects of free-will and our collective mis-use of it. Thanks OPF.
Peace,
Tay -
Fair enough. I agree, but I'm also exploring the other side of the fence, ie, "man-made" is under the umbrella of "god-made".
Tay, I've been pondering about that myself but somehow couldn't extract the gist of it; perhaps only at the surface or partially. Would love to hear from you on this one if you can provide further explanation and a few scenarios/examples to back it up. It seems doable though, relatively speaking but does carry its negatives between the two propositions in conjunction.Peace!
-
Salam,
everything is ultimately from Allah and controlled by Him. But we have the free-will to either follow Satan and corrupt the earth or look after it.
Remember Allah says corruption has spread throughout the land and sea because of what our hands have commited?
Think about verses where Allah tells us about how our relationship with earth is supposed to be like.
I have an interesting Power Point presentation about this issue that one of the FM brothers has emailed to me. It's interesting and about Globalisation, but I can't attach it here because the file is too large. If anyone wants it just send me an email.
Salam. peace
-
Tay, I've been pondering about that myself but somehow couldn't extract the gist of it; perhaps only at the surface or partially. Would love to hear from you on this one if you can provide further explanation and a few scenarios/examples to back it up. It seems doable though, relatively speaking but does carry its negatives between the two propositions in conjunction.
Peace!
Not necessarily. Would you consider an idol to be "God-made"?
It's more like God is the contracter for materials, he's not responsible for what the builders do.
-
peace all,
This is a very common question. When I get asked it I usually say the following...
I begin by listing various natural disasters earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, flood etc. I then choose one, e.g. hurricane and investigate the premise of the question.
Let's say hurricanes or any wind related natural disaster never occurred that would mean wind could not exist. Why? Because there is only two options
- IF wind exists and damage involving wind cannot occur (like the questioner suggests) then that means wind could not go over a certain force, because if it did it could and would damage something. Is this logical? In reality, wind would have to have zero force because even the slightest wind could cause damage.
- IF wind exists and damage involving wind could occur but not affecting humans then it would be illogical, it would not make sense that these events happened only in unpopulated areas.
Option 1 could only occur if nature's laws were re-written. Option 2 could only occur if we were willing to accept this HUGE illogical anomaly.
I then ask the questioner to explain to me what scenario they would like to see in order to have no natural disasters. No-one I have discussed this with has ever came up with any viable solution. Some say God is smart enough to create a world in which nothing like this happens, so it could be done... I again ask them if they can envisage such a system, again, no-one I have discussed this with has answered, and then I ask if such a system would make sense. Again, I have not had anyone come up with an answer.
I then hit them with so according to you in order for God to exist He must eliminate natural disasters but to do so requires a super-intelligent restructure that you cant even picture... so it is only possible by a super-intelligent being... such as God?
Hope the above makes sense.
-
There is somewhat of a flaw in that reasoning. Just because someone you meet cannot envisage this thing, does not mean that it cannot exist. Technically, that answer only puts the question in limbo - given the question, pretty permanently.
-
There is only a flaw in the reasoning if I said that that answers/refutes the question. Did I say that?
Implicit. Someone who wants to know isn't seriously going to take that for an answer...
-
Implicit for some and not for others I'm sure.
Conjecture. Seems to have worked pretty well for me in the past thus your above statement is empirically incorrect.
True. But it's still an open-ended answer. If you get what I mean.
-
i thought this was funny rotfl
Conspiracy theories pertaining to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami & Pakistan Earthquake
After the tsunamis of southeast Asia, a conspiracy theory was suggested by an Egyptian weekly newspaper that claims it was caused by a nuclear test under the ocean conducted jointly by Israel and India. This claim was reported by other newspapers, some commenting on its possibility while others dismissing it.
Another type of theory bases its claims on oil and gas interests. Others also reason that the technology is at least feasible if not highly probable since research into such technology has been conducted by the military as far back as World War II. According to declassified files, top-secret "tsunami bomb" experiments utilyzing nuclear explosions to trigger "mini-tidal waves" were conducted off the coast of New Zealand in 1944 and 1945. The U.S. Defense Department had even expressed concern about earthquake-inducing technology in warfare well before the 2004 disaster. In 1997 Defense Secretary William S. Cohen stated, "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Conspiracy_theories_pertaining_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_Tsunami_.26_Pakistan_Earthquake
-
The nature of the creator / God
By virtue of there being GOOD and BAD in the world, it is reasonable to assume that the creator is also both of these. Or is it?
By virtue of human beings possessing the ability to LOVE and HATE, it is reasonable to assume that the creator also loves and hates. Or is it?
It is most certainly necessary for the creator to comprehend good, bad, love and hate by virtue of the creator having made them! BUT, which of these does the creator advocate, if any?
I propose that the creator advocates that which is good and love, because the others do not "work". To put it another way, goodness and love CREATE, but that which is bad and hate, DESTROYS.
There is both natural creation and destruction in our world/our universe by scientific necessity. But is this same process present in the "heaven" we hear about in the scriptures? Is heaven, merely another physical location simply so far physically removed from our own universe? Or is it the "spiritual" location most people think of it as?
-
Peace,
Many people don't understand that for good to exist there HAS to be evil. An example is emotions. Are all emotions bad? No. Would love exist without emotions ? No. The ability to love/be compassionate is through emotions, just like the ability to be angry is through emotions. You take away both, you loose both. Isn't dark just the absence of light? And vice/versa. If there was sunlight all the time, would we be able to know what 'darkness' is? Just like that, If everything was good, we would have no concept of 'evil'; Apart from a boring, robotic world.
4312 And He is the One who created all the pairs, and He made for you from the ships and the livestock that which you can ride.
133 And He is the One who stretched-out the land, and made in it stabilizers and rivers, and from every fruit He made a pair of two; the night covers the day. In that are signs for a people who will think.
These verses aren't limited to gender .
-
Peace all,
What maybe irrational on the macro level could be beneficial on the micro level so we cannot even say something is absolutely irrational. This relativity concept is very important and can mean that what is satanic/irrational in our realm maybe rational and healthy in another. Quantum state theory and the shroedinger's cat concept should be contemplated on. Theres an infinite amount of states in existence simultaneously in the quantum realm. They all have to balance out somehow. Hence there can be no say of absolute good and evil and it is very important to realize this. This thought would clarify all issues regarding the question people often ask themelves as to why "bad" things happen and how is that fair for GOD to do/allow so. GOD Bless!
