Last post, I quoted Allan Laing, a Scottish Newspaperman’s comments on the terrific tragedy of the South Asian Tsunami in 2004,
”God, if there is a God, should be ashamed of himself. The sheer enormity of the Asian tsunami disaster, the death, destruction, havoc it has wreaked, the misery it has caused, must surely test the faith of even the firmest believer…I hope I am right that there is no God. For if there were then he’d have to shoulder the blame. In my book, he’d be a guilty as in, and I’d want nothing to do with him.”
I asked, how you might challenge Mr. Laing’s argument.
In this post, I’ll tackle this question, but if you want you can pause right now and give it some thought.
So, Mr. Laing, despite your doubts of G^d’s existence, you challenge the goodness of this God that the you doubt really exists. In doing so Mr. Laing, you make several unstated assumptions:
1) G^d, who doesn’t exist, must act in ways conforming to your opinions. Hmm, why would you assume G^d would act as you think He should?
2) Mr. Laing, you assume that “the death, destruction, havoc … and misery” are inconsistent with your opinion of how a G^d, who doesn’t exist ought to act, or else be ashamed.
3) Why do YOU assume that:
a. God ought to act in ways suitable to you?
b. Death, destruction, havoc and misery are not acceptable to G^d?
c. That you are in a position to correct G^d?
All of these are unspoken assumptions. It there is NO G^d, then WHO is to say what “ought” to be, or not be.
If there is a G^d, and He is TRULY G^d, then who am I, or you, or Mr. Laing to question Him?
Assuming, as I do, that G^d is neither answerable to us, nor even fully comprehended by us mere mortals, who are we to judge? Assuming the Christian G^d, as I do, I believe that God sent Jesus the Christ to redeem mankind. He has taken care of those in Jesus Christ. If a person dies in Christ, then he is immediately with G^d, in paradise.
If there is a G^d, as I believe, He is Sovereign and doesn’t need my understanding or approval. In fact, if G^d created mankind, and NOT the other way round, then I should NOT expect to understand G^d, or His ways, except as He may choose to explain himself. It is also clear that G^d is BEYOND time and space- which makes him BEYOND our full understanding. Furthermore G^d defines what is good, right, just, quite independent of my, or Mr. Laing’s opinions.
G^d exists, and He is beyond time and space. I can’t explain lots about G^d, and I find comfort in that lack of comprehensibility; else I would expect a fully comprehensive god to be an invention of man.
So, what would you add to this list?