According to Jim Ashby, a self-described “freethinker”:
Natural disasters are proof of nature’s power, not God’s (assuming he exists at all). They are also proof that nature is amoral (neither moral or immoral)…
If you accept that God gave us free will, then the wrongs we do are our own fault. But the indiscriminate pain and suffering caused by disease, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters are not our own fault. If God is omnipotent then we suffer without moral cause when victimized by ‘acts of God’.
Sure, free will. I get it. But why would God create a world with disease-carrying mosquitos, hurricanes and earthquakes if he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent? It is NOT good to cause injustice.
So, to answer your question, yes, natural disasters are proof that God (if he exists) is not benevolent.
That’s self-serving conclusion, and not really convincing. I find this quote from R.J. Rushdoony more convincing—and expository of Ashby:
Men are ready to believe that history and the universe are purposeless and mindless, and that disasters, deaths, earthquakes, and plagues are unrelated to any mind or will. The idea that a mind could be behind these events they find offensive. Why? The reason commonly cited through the centuries is that it is offensive to believe that a supreme mind and power, God, could permit such catastrophes or show such heartless wrath. Better a mindless disaster than a mindful one. This position, of course, insists that antipathetic events are inescapably wrong for God to indulge in, a major assumption and a thoroughly anthropocentric one.
- Ashby, J. (2015). Are natural disasters proof that if there is an omnipotent God, he is not benevolent? Quora. Available https://www.quora.com/Are-natural-disasters-proof-that-if-there-is-an-omnipotent-God-he-is-not-benevolent/answer/Jim-Ashby. Last accessed 28th Jun 2018.
- Rushdoony, R.J. (1969). The Biblical Philosophy of History [ebook]. Ross House Books, Vallecito, Location 1054 of 2407