Cornavirus why did god create it

[Donray]

Why did God create a new virus to kill people? This is a question for any Christain that believes in the Noah myth or creationism. Because if either is true then God did create this virus and did it to kill people.

Also, why does God allow this virus when he could wave his wand and get rid of it?

[AgnosticBoy]

I would really like to discuss this topic further with you if you still disagree and/or want to. I am curious as to why you think people can find morality in an atheistic worldview.

God is the ultimate sense of divine or cosmic justice that must be satisfied. He has the biggest the stick. Morality is simply His opinion.

There is no 'objective' morality under an atheistic worldview. Some atheists point to evolution via natural selection as a source for morality but even that falls short when you consider life does not have to exist in the first place. Not only that but not all morals have to do with "survival". The obvious ones like not cheating or killing impact survival. Other rules are purely social conventions, like a no-divorce marriage, or marriage being restricted to those 18 years or older. Human life can thrive without the latter type, so do we just drop these rules just because they have no bearing on survival? Many would object to that.

We can also say that many moral standards come from God, but then you would have to prove God's existence in order to convince people that these rules apply in the real world.

[Donray]

There are only three options:

1: God created all the diseases.
2: Done though evolution of millions of years.
3: By man some how because of Eve.

If it is 2 or 3 then others beside god can create life.

Why doesn't pray cure the virus?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 18 by Willum]

You are correct. God is not good. Good is whatever He determines it to be. Morality is simply His opinion.

This argument doesn't justify belief in any particular deity over belief in any other. If the gods of Olympus exist, then they're the ones whose opinion is moral. By your reasoning, you can't argue against any particular god's existence on moral grounds.

[Purple Knight]

So you think, Mr. Knight, that there are "moral greats" who should decide for us what is moral?

Absolutely. I absolutely think that less moral people (like myself) should look to accepted moral greats for guidance.

I think that others might disagree with that premise, and I am sure others would disagree about who would qualify as morally "great".

I'm sure they would, and in that case, either of us might be wrong, but it's better to carefully study history and look at who is considered moral than it is to just trust whoever says theirs is the word of God.

Generally speaking, history itself will tell us one from the other very reliably.

Martin Luther King was a moral great. Gandhi was a moral great. I believe George Soros is the next moral great, as he uses his wealth to champion human rights around the globe, but only time will tell.

There is no 'objective' morality under an atheistic worldview. Some atheists point to evolution via natural selection as a source for morality but even that falls short when you consider life does not have to exist in the first place. Not only that but not all morals have to do with "survival". The obvious ones like not cheating or killing impact survival. Other rules are purely social conventions, like a no-divorce marriage, or marriage being restricted to those 18 years or older. Human life can thrive without the latter type, so do we just drop these rules just because they have no bearing on survival? Many would object to that.

I would discard examples like sacred marriage and an age of consent of 18, instead using examples like slavery or racism, both objectively wrong according to the moral greats.

We can also say that many moral standards come from God, but then you would have to prove God's existence in order to convince people that these rules apply in the real world.

I agree with this absolutely, and it's furthermore pointless to simply trust or to have faith, because someone else has a similar god that you're to have faith in, and his morality says the thing the first god told you to do is actually wrong.

I therefore say that one can only find morality through people we know exist.

[Menotu]

So God is the source of ALL evil. That would mean the God is evil. God created the devil and hell. God created the black death and wiped out about half the population of Europe.

Absolutely.
Even if he didn't create it, he allowed it to be created and to exist.
Guilty either way you look at it as you can't create everything that exists and then say 'Ooopsey...that slipped by me!'
But people who are 'indoctrinated' to believe will make all kinds of excuses for their tyrant

[TheGreatDebate]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You are describing survival behaviors. That is fine in and of itself but that doesnt have much to do with objective morality. Unless perhaps you are describing subjective morality? If that is the case, than yes with an absent god, that is the only system that exists. Mind you that that means that any person can justify literally any action.

[TheGreatDebate]

[Replying to post 26 by brunumb]

This is the story in the Gospels. God Himself comes to Earth and we kill Him. Everything requires faith. Even a non-belief in God. That requires a faith that something that may never even prove to be observable and thus provable (the beginning of the universe, etc) The Bible tells us that God is looking for this very faith and humility. It is part of a grand lesson for His children.

You may disagree with me and that is fine, Ill just leave you with the words of Jesus Himself.

Matthew 13:10-15
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

If He spoke plainly than everyone would understand. That isnt His goal.

[TheGreatDebate]

[Replying to post 27 by Purple Knight]

Based on your comments I take it that you believe in an objective morality without a deity? If that is the case, I challenge you to explain to me why murder is wrong. Then tell me what tells you/and humanity that. Then tell me what happens if I disagree.

This also may not be the best thread for it.

[TheGreatDebate]

.
Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[TheGreatDebate]

[Replying to post 32 by Donray]

Coming from a Christian perspective, I would ask, why would God cure the virus?

He lays out very clearly what we are to do and not do and what He will and will not do in response. Virtually none of the world keeps any of His statutes. By His very own words, why would He not punish?

This is regardless of the fact that He said He basically abandoned us after the divorce until He comes again. His righteous anger will be carried out.