You can’t.
Because you’ve set up a false set of choices. You’ve made item 1 simple when it is not. It should be something like.
- There is no God but through the existence of an infinite and everlasting universe there has come about by chance definable laws of physics. These laws allowed the spontonous but as yet unexplained creation of life that through evolution led to the creation of human beings.
Now either choice requires faith.
Gee, and to think William of Ockham spent all those years as a Catholic monk (although he was later excommunicated for supporting the Free Spirit heresy, essentially accusing the Pope of being a heretic from his own perspective of course). If only you and he had crossed paths!
The proper implication of his Razor would be to say there is no reason to assume multiple God’s when only one would do.
I disagree. I think you’re complicating my original point by adding in an additional factor – the creation and existence of life – that was not mentioned in the original point or the original question (“Why does God behave in a particular way?”).
jmullaney, how is assuming the existence of one god simpler (and more acceptable) than assuming the existence of no gods? To accept the existence of even one god opens up an entire can of worms (who created God, where did he come from, what are his abilities, etc.) that are eliminated by assuming there are no gods.
It still seems to me that “God does not exist” is the simplest possible explaination available, and the purpose of a religion is to cover up this simple answer with convoluted excuses and rationales.
The replies so far seem to circle around the difference between an atheist and Judeo-Christian God.
Perhaps the Buddha is pointing to the correct path.
Our existence outside of “God” is only an illusion. Until we realize that “God” is us and we are “God”, we’ll keep going around in theological circles.
Then again, that idea might be wrong and maybe there is a Supreme Being responsible in some way for existence. However all of our thoughts are human. We can’t think as “God” thinks anymore than we can think as a dog thinks.
What does that mean? It means that when we try to ascribe our values of good, we are thinking in our terms. Perhaps there is a greater good that we are unaware of in any event.
Or, more likely, there is a certain level of chance in life. When something negative happens within the realm of possibilities, “God’s” goodness is not measured by whether s/he/it allowed it to happen, but whether, through your belief or faith you are able to be comforted and carry on with your life.
Not bad for my first post to SDMB, if I do say so myself
You are attempting to disprove the existence of God by relying on the artifical boundries of this thread.
Let’s recap how we got here. The OP asks us to attempt to explain the actions of God. You respond by claiming there is no God and use Occam’s Razor to buffer your point. I fail to see why I should have to temper my response by using only what has been mentioned in the OP in order to counter your point of God’s nonexistence. Your point has little basis in reality if for it to be valid we have to ignore the existence of life.
You are skewing the choices you lay before us in an attempt to prove that which you already believe. The nonexistence of God raises as many questions as would the existence of God. To believe in either scenario requires faith. You wish to simply brush off those who believe in God as not seeing what you believe to be obvious. But what you believe requires a leap in logic itself.
In any case Occam’s Razor is at best a tool for guess work. The simpliest explanation is not always the correct one.
Such as? (asking because I’m curious, not to be provocative)
True 'nuff. Though whenever I get into one of these “Why does God let bad things happen to good people?”, it just strikes me as blindingly obvious that “There is no God” is the simplest and most accurate answer.
Disagree–God could just as ‘obviously’ be a sadist. Or a schizophrenic. Or an oversized 8-year-old. Or a teacher.
Bad things happening to good people doesn’t necessarily disprove God’s existence at all.
Most religeons seem to treat God like he’s this infinitely wise old man who watches the universe like we would watch a giant ant farm. Occasionally, he picks an ant at random and toys with it. Sometimes he gets angry at us, or vengeful, or he just stirs up things kind of like we would do if we get bored with the ants.
The ants in the ant farm would likely percieve us to be their god. We created their universe. We can decide which ones live or die. We send them food, light, darkness; all miracles to the tiny ants. They wouldn’t understand us in the context of their world any more than we understand God. We would seem infinite compared to the short lifespan of the ants. To them, we always were and always will be.
So if God is just a big multi-dimensional super-being playing with our cosmos like an ant farm, is he still worthy of our worship? Would you still put your faith in God to help your favorite football team or protect you from plane crashes?
Personally, I like to think God is a little more complicated than that.
So why do bad things happen to good people? Well God (whatever his true nature) created a pretty complicated universe. Its pretty big and its made out of a lot of really, really small parts. I don’t think he’s really a micromanager so he created these rules called physics that govern how the universe runs. I don’t think God appears in the form of miracles but that doesn’t disprove his existance. Especially when you realize how complicated the universe really is when its just doing its regular day to day stuff. And yet the whole damn thing seems to stay in balance.
If it makes you feel better think of it this way: God’s too busy making sure the galaxies don’t all careen together to worry about you getting hit by a bus.
Apparently, she can’t even get that right. 
Photos of galaxies colliding:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/11/02/hubble.galaxy.collision/
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951228.html
Woody Allen once said that he didn’t believe that God was malevolent or evil… just an underachiever.
Just because something is subjective doesn’t mean it can’t be proven.
Bad things don’t happen to good people, rjung, since someone who has reached spiritual perfection can’t suffer. Witness the teachings of Buddha or Jesus singing songs while being cruxified, the teachings of the Taoist Chuang Tzu and those of various Hindu and Christian mystics.
If you don’t suffer, it ain’t a bad thing.
That’s true enough; thanks for the reminder – I had forgotten about the Buddhism/nirvana viewpoint on the topic there.
Though I suppose if we carried this argument to an extreme, if a Christian woman was pregnant and she miscarried, would the proper response be “Oh, stop sobbing, you’ve got nothing to be upset about”?
(I wouldn’t say it, but then I prefer to give comfort directly instead of relying on outside forces…)
Hmmm… well, we might want to draw some distinction between suffering due to physics and suffering due to empathy, or even suffering due to an inablility to accept “God’s will” for lack of a better term. Empathy is a healthy, normal human response; but if her sorrow has at its root bitterness then it isn’t healthy. I wouldn’t presume to judge. Certaintly after some reasonable amount of time that would be a valid bit of advise, you would agree?
rjung,
With the idea of a supreme creator in place it remains a possibility to trace down the origins of the universe to a single catalyst. Without the idea of God the origins of the universe begin to take on mystic qualities of their own. If matter was not created, has it always been? The concept of infinite matter, time, and our very existence takes on elements of incredibly good random chance for us to even be having this conversation. In an infinite universe are all things possible?
I suspect if there is a God, it exists in a form and nature that we simply do not really understand. I am ill at ease to dismiss the concept of God too easily when our understanding and exploration of the universe has been so very limited.
True 'nuff, but now you’re talking about a God that is so abstracted, you may as well say “God == laws of nature.”
You’re also talking about a God which bears no resemblance to the dude described in the Bible (or any other holy book), or who receives the adulation and prayers of the faithful … so aren’t we saying again that God (as popularly believed) doesn’t exist?
Actually the idea of God = laws of nature is not far from the Tao.
True, but taoism isn’t a religion in the traditional definition of the term. It’s more of a philosophy in my mine than anything else. At the very least, I haven’t heard of any Taoists applying for tax-exempt status… 
Baruch Spinoza came to the same conclusion–“God or Nature”–neatest application of Occam’s Razor, ever.
So, of course, he got excommunicated and somebody tried to kill him, and he died poor but happy.
God as nature or providence is qualified deism. God as the universe fills the demand that God to be everything to everyone.
I never mentioned anything about any of these things. I Never said anything about him causing dinosaurs to go extinct, about him interfering with my life, or mentioned I thought he was Santa Clause or my Fairy Godmother. I dont know where you got these things from, but I would appreciate if you wouldnt add words into my topic or think that I think these things.
**
[/QUOTE]
Blaming God for bad plays is like blaming the guy that nailed the peach baskets to the wall for today’s bad plays.
**
[/QUOTE]
Actually, in both instances there is cause to blame both. The guy who came up with basketball of course isnt directly responsible for all the poor plays, But if he had not invented the game (and assuming nobody did if he didnt) There would be no plays, let along bad ones.
Comming from this angle, God certainly is responsible for everything he created. In all his “infiniteness” how come this design is the one he chose? There had to have been other options. And even “I” a “lowly mortal carbon based lifeform” can see other options. (and better ones too)
Am I screaming and ranting about how much this life sucks? No, this lowly mortal has the wisdom to see that there is a reason for it, and I accept it. Do I point an accusing finger at God? It depends on how you interpret it, I certainly dont feel that way, though there are obviously some who think so.
Personally I lean towards there being NO God, that life, the universe and everything was created the way Science dictates. Does that mean I totally leave out the POSSIBLITY of God? No, that would be foolish. Hence, Theology.