The live images carried by the media of the devastating floods in Queensland make for terrifying viewing and thanks that it is not us in that awful situation. My thoughts are with them and a desire to help in some way rendered totally impotent by distance and logistics. Hopefully most people will be covered by insurance but for the unprotected they are left in a truly desperate situation.
This led me to ponder if any of the insurers may reject claims because they are seen as ‘an act of God’. No doubt some may try to abdicate responsibility by means of this dubious subterfuge but hopefully not.
My musings wandered further to wondering whether this counter claim would be rejected by atheists, after all if there is no over-arching being then how can such devastation be deemed an act of God? Perhaps if challenged it may lead to a potentially interesting court case and what might be the possible outcome.
The mind, as it it is wont to do, continued this train of thought a little further. It is obviously true to say that advertising a product sells that product because without that publicity the product would remain unknown. Any such advertising is obviously at the behest of the manufacturer or creator who wishes to maximise the potential return on their efforts. One source of publicity is by endorsement, not by celebrities, but by satisfied users who are prepared to say the goods do exactly what it says on the tin.
If, as some believe, there is an omnipresent deity then why does this entity not advertise personally rather than have others espousing the cause by proxy? An even better endorsement would be if a satisfied user were to return from the ultimate destination of their faith and proclaim loud and long that the product does indeed work.
I for one have yet to see nor hear of any such claim in the face of which I shall be vehemently challenging any claim of an act of God that may come my way ...
