@aldo_14:
Ah, but name one natural disaster that's selectively targeted only 'unbelievers'...
Outside the hypothetical (htl.), it doesn't appear possible to answer that request. i would've figured such to not be a problem though, since i did stipulate the context as being within the htl.
In the context of the htl., then... i stipulated only so far as "suppose that those things truly were a punishment to non-believers / disbelievers." Going farther to address the fate of any "believers" caught by disaster, didn't occur to me as relevant. At present, the request seems tangential, thus an answer seems unnecessary.
Let's remember, though, that it's a loaded hypothetical...
Hm. [curiosity enabled] Would you toss me an example of an "unloaded" htl.?
Aside from that, i agree that the question now looks a tad top-heavy from assumptions like the one you've pinpointed. It does appear taken-as-granted that karajorma would be able to identify not only the reason for the punishment, but also its source, out of the multitude of possibles all voiced from around the world. (Quite a heavy burden, indeed.)
However, what i had in my mind plus what i wrote in the htl., are from my POV just a bit down and to the left of how they appear. i hope my reply to karajorma will sort things.
* * *
@karajorma:
Since I don't believe in God in the first place the question is pretty moot anyway.
i'm thinking the htl. may be buggy, thus making the aim of my curiosity seem like a moot target.
You're saying, let's assume for the purposes of this argument, that God exists.
Not really.
i think between both your response and aldo_14's reply, there has been a bit of smuggling. i stipulated "a Creator". Not "God". The two aren't necessarily or automatically co-equal; in naming one but not the other, i was specifically trying to avoid the baggage commonly strewn everywhere by the latter.
So, at the risk of boring anyone further by endless repetition of my rambles: "Suppose a Creator [i.e. an intelligent something, with the ability to create plus maintain influence over this universe, and which exists as far beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry, as a laptop is beyond the grasp of an ant] truly was in charge of such things..."
If this elaborated definition isn't sufficient, let me know. In the meantime...
My point was that I refuse to believe...
i appreciate the further detail of your point. [thoughtful] Here's where i'll pick up where i left off with aldo_14. i was attempting to paint an htl. with these key elements...
1.) The aforementioned Creator, punishing a set group of people with a natural disaster, for motivations unexplained
2.) A number of evangelistic believers, proclaiming the natural disaster to be punishment from an angry deity, even without a true knowledge or insight about the actual Creator / its motivations
3.) karajorma, solely able to perceive the believers' claims, likewise unable to perceive the Creator itself
4.) The question, "... when weighing the tremendous tragedy of those disasters... versus the worth of keeping firm to any anti-deity beliefs [i.e. the beliefs karajorma holds while unaware of the stipulated Creator and only aware of the believers' interpretation of same] ... is it truly wise to value the latter over the former?..."
Hence, the question wasn't, "if you knew about God, would you still disbelieve?" i do regret, that it translated that way.
i was asking, "since you don't know, is it wise / worth the cost to aggressively disbelieve, even though your own limitations might be defying the connection of 'natural disaster' with 'imposed punishment'?"
But that's not a case of belief. That's simple petulance...
[thoughtful again] Although this answer is afield of my question, i still find it intriguing. In your eyes, does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance? Some might argue that several of humanity's greatest moments of triumph versus adversity, came about precisely because the people involved refused to accept the fact of their situation / their oppressor's power / their own weaknesses. Is there a difference between that versus what you would label as petulance?
My point wasn't that I would continue to deny God's existance...
As i said initially, i found your first statement to be sensible from one context. i feel the same towards this statement as well.
