Argument from evil, restated

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unless I'm mistaken and morality is a physical object or force which can be measured, then every moral order transcends physical reality to whatever degree, so that takes care of that.

Whatever transcends physical reality is by definition non-physical. Does this put you on record as advocating belief in non-physical aspects of reality? That's a rather tenuous position for the godless.

...every disaster has a moral implication and every one of them is, to some greater or lesser extent, that god's fault, for either allowing it to happen...If life is a gift, it should never be taken away. Otherwise, it's not a gift at all. If you take back gifts, without reason or warning, you're an asshole.

You forget that God offers you eternal life, which is better than bodily life. You have to be a complete fool to reject His love. Yes there is pain in this life, but it is turned to good when we help each other and take comfort in His Promise.

---

Evil, calamity, what does it matter? The words can be lumped together.

Which is why the argument fails, as explained earlier. If you refuse to make important distinctions, then you cannot learn and will persist in your error.

---

By who standards do you presume to judge the acts of God as 'bad things?'

By his own of course. Godless butt-babies cannot resist trying to put themselves on God's throne.