Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

[VaAugusta]

I wrote a paper on the problem of evil recently. I condensed the the argument into:

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

I argued that the problem of evil isn't wrong, but that the definition of God is in error.

Therefore, the definition of God needs to be redefined. Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not against evil.

I personally feel that it could be either, and that the chances of it being either are quite possibe (in my personal belief both are wrong). To remove the problem of evil I only need to redefine one of those, however. This is best at keeping our optimistic hopes! I believe (from analogy) that God is not omnipotent. The basis of my view is that nothing that I have seen or believe to ever exist in nature is all powerful. Therefore to assume that ANYTHING out there is omnipotent is a tad absurd. However, I believe that I am against evil, and therefore something in nature is against evil, so the possibility of God being against evil is more likely.

Then again, people would question whether our Creator is a "God" if she isn't omnipotent.
I'd like to say: Yes!

[Thorne]

Therefore, the definition of God needs to be redefined. Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not against evil.

This is the big problem I have with religion. As culture changes, and our perceptions of good and bad are redefined, our definition of God needs to be changed as well.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Science does this all the time. New evidence changes our understanding of, for example, evolution. Our theories of evolution have to be modified to account for this new evidence. This is how knowledge advances.

But God is supposed to be unchanging, isn't He? After all, He is omniscient, knowing everything, past, present and future. There is nothing new to inspire change in Him, is there?

But if we can keep changing our definitions of God then we reduce Him to a mere hypothesis, subject to change upon learning new evidence. And since there IS no evidence, and no way to test our hypothesis, we can't even advance him to the status of theory! He must remain forever in limbo, untestable.

[thir]

I wrote a paper on the problem of evil recently. I condensed the the argument into:

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

I think this calls for a definition of 'evil'.
Is an earthquake 'evil'?
Is a war evil, but we are the ones resposible for it?

I believe (from analogy) that God is not omnipotent. The basis of my view is that nothing that I have seen or believe to ever exist in nature is all powerful. Therefore to assume that ANYTHING out there is omnipotent is a tad absurd.

Then again, people would question whether our Creator is a "God" if she isn't omnipotent.
I'd like to say: Yes!

I too can conceive of a non-omnipotent God. Whoever made that a definition? I think it hasn't always been. Maybe God, or the Gods, are just a lot more powerful than we are.

[Ozme52]

-God is omnipotent.
-God is against evil.
-God could prevent evil.
C: This is not the case, therefore God does not exist.

First: Your conclusion isn't logical. At best, from these statements, you can only conclude that God is either not omnipotent or God is not against evil. You cannot conclude his existance or non-existance from these statements.

Second: Your assumptions make presumptions about the nature of God that many such as myself would argue against. Why would an omipotent God be concerned with the human definitions of evil? You can't get humanity to agree on the definition of evil... therefore how can you make a statement regarding God's perspective of evil.