Why did God create a world were babies are killed?

[Hibblyn]

First, I meant where not were in the title. Can this be fixed?

And I am not talking about evil. I am talking about natural things that kill babies. These have nothing to do with free will or man choosing to commit evil. These things existed before humans even evolved and have been killing humans since they first appeared. They are not in any way connected to free will or choices made by man.

I really don’t see the difference in the death of an elderly person and the death of a child if we believe that all bodies are made in the image of God and have an eternal soul.
Paul said…to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
Also the bible says that “God delights in the death of his saints.” I think that you need to rethink “death”. To we humans, who live as though this world is all there is, death seems like the worse thing that could happen.
I say, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand death as our creator sees it.

Hibblyn

 

[ateista]

Describe what evidence would convince a non-believer. Complete this thought: “Even though some human beings, including babies, suffer greatly, I would believe that God loves them if it could be shown…”

… that the baby actually gained “this” benefit, which the baby would consider a good “bargain”, if he were able to percieve and understand.

Please substitute the words “this” with something explicit.

(Sorry to butt in, but I just saw this thread.)

 

[jmcrae]

… that the baby actually gained “this” benefit, which the baby would consider a good “bargain”, if he were able to percieve and understand.

Please substitute the words “this” with something explicit.

(Sorry to butt in, but I just saw this thread.)

The baby would participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in so doing, would gain Heaven.

(I think I said something similar earlier in this thread, but I am too rushed to try to look it up right now.)

 

[ateista]

The baby would participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in so doing, would gain Heaven.

(I think I said something similar earlier in this thread, but I am too rushed to try to look it up right now.)

Sorry that is not adequate.

What do you mean: “participate”? Even if everyone would participate in this event, the pain and suffering of the baby is not needed. Or maybe only the ones who needlessly suffer are the ones who “participate”? Also I think that babies would automatically get to heaven - according to the Catholic beliefs - so the pain and death are not needed at all.

Let me amend what I said before to be more precise:

… that the baby actually gained “this” benefit, which the baby would consider a good “bargain”, if he were able to percieve and understand and which good cannot be achieved by any other means.

Please substitute the words “this” with something explicit.

 

[Chris_B]

Sorry that is not adequate.

What do you mean: “participate”? Even if everyone would participate in this event, the pain and suffering of the baby is not needed. Or maybe only the ones who needlessly suffer are the ones who “participate”? Also I think that babies would automatically get to heaven - according to the Catholic beliefs - so the pain and death are not needed at all.

“Needed”, per se, no. But once one gains the resurrection, all else is irrelevant. It may have been an early death, but really, what exactly matters about ones earthly sufferings if they gain salvation?

that the baby actually gained “this” benefit, which the baby would consider a good “bargain”, if he were able to percieve and understand and which good cannot be achieved by any other means.

To my knowledge, nothing. That the answer you wanted? It wouldn’t gain something that it could not by any other means, but it would still gain assured entrance into Heaven. After that, as I said before, all else is irrelevant. Life can be harsh, we all know that, but if the reward is infinite, then sufferings are a nonissue.

That’s how I see it, anyway.

 

[ateista]

“Needed”, per se, no. But once one gains the resurrection, all else is irrelevant. It may have been an early death, but really, what exactly matters about ones earthly sufferings if they gain salvation?

To my knowledge, nothing. That the answer you wanted? It wouldn’t gain something that it could not by any other means, but it would still gain assured entrance into Heaven. After that, as I said before, all else is irrelevant. Life can be harsh, we all know that, but if the reward is infinite, then sufferings are a nonissue.

That’s how I see it, anyway.

I have seen this line of reasoning before. Now, of course the next step would be to substantiate that there is a “salvation”, that there is a “heaven”. I eagerly wait for some evidence… evidence, mind you, and not just saying: “that is what we Catholics believe”. I respect your belief, but for us non-believers it is nothing more than wishful thinking, empty speculation.

I must also say that I very much respect the honesty of your post, because you did not try to wiggle out of the question - unlike the other posters did. You are the only one who had the courage to accept that the baby’s suffering is useless, unneccesary. And the definition of “evil” is to cause or allow needless suffering. So you confirmed that God is far from loving, he is an evil being.

Where I take exception is that you say that this life’s suffering does not “really” matter, once one gets the alleged salvation. This principle says that prior suffering can be alleviated by some rewards later. If that principle would be true, then we should see nothing wrong with a father who needlessly spanks his child - as long as he gives a candy to the child later - as compensation.

I do not accept that wrongdoing can be nullified by later rewards. The past cannot be changed.

 

[seekerz]

I have seen this line of reasoning before. Now, of course the next step would be to substantiate that there is a “salvation”, that there is a “heaven”. I eagerly wait for some evidence… evidence, mind you, and not just saying: “that is what we Catholics believe”. I respect your belief, but for us non-believers it is nothing more than wishful thinking, empty speculation.

I must also say that I very much respect the honesty of your post, because you did not try to wiggle out of the question - unlike the other posters did. You are the only one who had the courage to accept that the baby’s suffering is useless, unneccesary. And the definition of “evil” is to cause or allow needless suffering. So you confirmed that God is far from loving, he is an evil being.

Where I take exception is that you say that this life’s suffering does not “really” matter, once one gets the alleged salvation. This principle says that prior suffering can be alleviated by some rewards later. If that principle would be true, then we should see nothing wrong with a father who needlessly spanks his child - as long as he gives a candy to the child later - as compensation.

I do not accept that wrongdoing can be nullified by later rewards. The past cannot be changed.

How dare you stand in judgement of God?

First go solve the mysteries of the universe, go create something out of absolutely nothing, command the powers of nature to do your bidding, then come and tell us what gives you the authority to speak like this about things you do not understand.

For that matter, have you ever seen a baby suffer? I have - and I’ll tell you what: once you’ve seen a suffering baby’s amazing strength, tenacity and resilience, you’ll realize the adults of this world whine too much about everything…the proof of God’s love and goodness is that He actually chooses to put up with it!

 

[Richard_Powers]

How dare you stand in judgement of God?

Don’t you stand in judgment of God?

Is God good? Don’t you have to stand in judgment of God to answer this question? Is God worthy of worship? Don’t you have to stand in judgment of God to answer this question Does God love all humans? Don’t you have to stand in judgment of God to answer this question?

How can someone be a Catholic without judging God to exist and judging that God is worthy of worship?

So do you judge God?

 

[LSK]

Judging and accepting are two different things.

God did not create a world where evil happens; however, He allows evil to happen because out of all evil comes great good. The greatest evil ever committed - far beyond anything you can imagine - was the murder of the Creator by His creatures. By allowing that to happen, however, the horrible rift between the two was healed and the gates of heaven were opened - the greatest GOOD that had happened since man and woman sinned by trying to ‘be like God’.

All sin flows from that one, doesn’t it? In our quest to reject our own station and ‘be like God’ horrible evils are committed…but from all evil comes great good.

 

[ateista]

Judging and accepting are two different things.

Not so. Acceptance only comes from judging something, and when the judgement is satisfactory - one can accept. What believers say that we must judge God, but the judgement must be positive, even if the evidence points in the other direction. The believers are in violation of the “duck principle”.

God did not create a world where evil happens; however, He allows evil to happen because out of all evil comes great good.

And precisely that was the question throughout this thread: what specific good comes for the suffering and death of that baby? Not just for someone, but for the baby itself? To say that someone else may have gained some unknown benefit reduces that baby to a mere “teaching material”, and to use humans (or other feeling entities) to a mere object status is evil.

The answer is not forthcoming, because there can be no answer. Chris B was the only one who had the intellectual courage to admit it.

 

[john_doran]

Not so. Acceptance only comes from judging something, and when the judgement is satisfactory - one can accept. What believers say that we must judge God, but the judgement must be positive, even if the evidence points in the other direction. The believers are in violation of the “duck principle”.

no, they’re not…

“if it looks like the action of an omnibenevolent god, then it must be the action of an omnibenevolent god”.

or, put a little more traditionally:

A) god is omnibenevolent;
B) god did X;
C) therefore X must be good.

of course, you simply reject premise (A) out of hand, and are in fact demanding that the believer use a kind of moral induction to show that something like premise (A) can be justified by what you take to be the moral evidence.

but why should i be able to do that? i don’t, in fact, believe that go is all-good because of the way the world works; i believe that the way the world works must ultimately be good because i believe that god is omnibenevolent. so my not being able to demonstrate the goodness of god only by appealing to terrestrial events is logically irrelevant.

ateista:

And precisely that was the question throughout this thread: what specific good comes for the suffering and death of that baby? Not just for someone, but for the baby itself?

ok, i’ll bite: i don’t know. but so what? why is knowledge of the specific benefit to be achieved via some otherwise undesirable event, necessary for the moral rectity of causing that event to happen? that is, why does a person need to understand the good that will come from doing or enduring something they dislike or even hate, in order to make it morally justifiable to cause that person to do the hated thing?

am i immoral for making my 4 year old son eat his peas? or for my 12 year old go to school on days when it seems like torture for him? or…

what’s more, why does anyone other than the pereson causing the putatuve harm need to understand the specific benefit achieved by the harm being inflicted? so what if we can’t comprehend what good comes from suffering? god understands what it is. what else is morally required?

ateista:

To say that someone else may have gained some unknown benefit reduces that baby to a mere “teaching material”, and to use humans (or other feeling entities) to a mere object status is evil.

not necessarily - if the suffering is unintended, and if it’s pedagogical use is likewise unintended, then even according to your brand of deontology, it’s not evil.

ateista:

The answer is not forthcoming, because there can be no answer. Chris B was the only one who had the intellectual courage to admit it.

ah, but there is an answer: do you have the intellectual courage to admit that?

 

[catharina]

ah, but there is an answer: do you have the intellectual courage to admit that?

Anyone can recieve the gift of faith.
All one must do is ask for it.

 

[Chris_B]

And the definition of “evil” is to cause or allow needless suffering. So you confirmed that God is far from loving, he is an evil being.

Maybe that’s your definition of evil; it’s certainly not mine.

By saving us from Hell, he’s loving beyond any misfortune that did happen. That said, it could be considered an act of divine mercy to die so young sometimes (In this instance, I’ll leave it up to God to decide; men, to me, are incapable of doing this, since they never know all the information).

 

[ateista]

no, they’re not…

“if it looks like the action of an omnibenevolent god, then it must be the action of an omnibenevolent god”.

or, put a little more traditionally:

A) god is omnibenevolent;
B) god did X;
C) therefore X must be good.

There is no need to restrict this type of argument to God. And the term “omnibenevolent” is undefined. I would like to put it into somewhat different terms:

1. Entity “A” is assumed benevolent. (Hypothesis)
2. Entity “A” did / allowed “X”
3. doing / allowing “X” is not the sign of benevolence.

Your conclusion:
4) The facts contradict the hypothesis, too bad for the facts.

My conclusion:
4) The facts contradict the hypothesis: therefore Entity “A” is not benevolent.

If the evidence contradicts the premise, the premise / hypothesis must be discarded or modified.

of course, you simply reject premise (A) out of hand, and are in fact demanding that the believer use a kind of moral induction to show that something like premise (A) can be justified by what you take to be the moral evidence.

I did not reject the premise, I just showed that the experiment contradicts the premise. A rational observer discards / modifies the premise. An irrational one pretends that the experiment never happend.

but why should i be able to do that? i don’t, in fact, believe that go is all-good because of the way the world works; i believe that the way the world works must ultimately be good because i believe that god is omnibenevolent. so my not being able to demonstrate the goodness of god only by appealing to terrestrial events is logically irrelevant.

That is called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

ok, i’ll bite: i don’t know. but so what? why is knowledge of the specific benefit to be achieved via some otherwise undesirable event, necessary for the moral rectity of causing that event to happen? that is, why does a person need to understand the good that will come from doing or enduring something they dislike or even hate, in order to make it morally justifiable to cause that person to do the hated thing?

Because it is only the person involved who is entitled to make that call. Many people are willing to endure someone else’s suffering, and that is hypocritical.

am i immoral for making my 4 year old son eat his peas? or for my 12 year old go to school on days when it seems like torture for him? or…

Indeed, they may not be able to comprehend your valid reasons, so for them it seems like a unreasonable request. Your valid defense is: "if they were able to comprehend your reasons (and those valid reasons exist!), they would agree that it is a reasonable request. And that is what I posted earlier.

what’s more, why does anyone other than the pereson causing the putatuve harm need to understand the specific benefit achieved by the harm being inflicted? so what if we can’t comprehend what good comes from suffering? god understands what it is. what else is morally required?

That is (again) called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

not necessarily - if the suffering is unintended, and if it’s pedagogical use is likewise unintended, then even according to your brand of deontology, it’s not evil.

Intent has nothing to do with it. Knowing that the suffering exists, that it serves no higher purpose, and still allowing it to happen - that is evil.

ah, but there is an answer: do you have the intellectual courage to admit that?

If what you said up here is your answer, then it is inadequate: “argument from ignorance” is just another fallacy.

Of course all this could be solved in a second: if God truly has valid reasons for that baby’s suffering, he can just enlighten us about those reasons, for example by implanting them into your mind, and then you could argue for him. Since it does not happen, we are free to draw our conclusions. I will draw mine based upon reason, you will draw yours based upon your faith.

 

[jmcrae]

Intent has nothing to do with it. Knowing that the suffering exists, that it serves no higher purpose, and still allowing it to happen - that is evil.

God allows us to experience the reality in which we exist. Anything less would be dishonest. There cannot be love without honesty. If God were to play little cosmic games of “let’s pretend” every time someone began to experience the negative aspects of the reality in which they live, there would be nothing reliable - we could not even define what reality is. Science and medicine would not be able to exist, because there would be no consistency to cause and effect.

The end result of that would be that the experience of being on this earth, and whatever lessons we are supposed to learn from being here, would be lost, and we would remain spiritually immature, because everything we want and like would just somehow kind of appear, without any effort or worry or work on our part. Without having to learn and grow - which we usually do by failing and by suffering - we would not be able to become the people that God wants us to become.

As you look back over your life, you will be able to see that times of suffering that seemed completely pointless at the time have turned out to be valuable to you in your journey through life - you gained compassion, or a practical skill, or an insight that you otherwise could not have experienced, that helps you to be the person that you are today.

This life is not the end. All of those experiences will continue to be valuable, even in Heaven. When we get to Heaven, we are not going to be sitting around on clouds listening to harp music - rather, we are going to be working on behalf of God and others.

The work we are going to be doing in Heaven is what we are being trained for, here on earth. The suffering we experience is part of our apprenticeship - usually, it is the consequence of either a bad decision of ours, or someone else’s bad decision. How we deal with it (which is our personal choice) determines whether we will be booted out of the apprenticeship program (Hell) or elevated to Master Craftsman (Heaven).

 

[jmcrae]

Of course all this could be solved in a second: if God truly has valid reasons for that baby’s suffering, he can just enlighten us about those reasons, for example by implanting them into your mind, and then you could argue for him.

Considering that this is a hypothetical baby, there is nothing for God to explain, since God has not actually done anything to him.

When it comes to real babies, God does, indeed, explain it to those who need to know.

Get yourself a big box of kleenex, send everyone else in the house away on errands, and then watch this video.

Watch it all the way to the very end. Maybe Baby Eliot will help you find your answer.

 

[ateista]

Considering that this is a hypothetical baby, there is nothing for God to explain, since God has not actually done anything to him.

Yes, that is true.

Actually, my favorite question is somewhat different. I don’t like to use “babies”, because they already have a built-in tear-jerker connotation. I prefer the problem of animals perishing in a natrual disaster - like the recent California fires.

1. Animals are innocent of any wrongdoing.
2. Animals feel pain, though they do not feel mental anguish.
3. Their death does not seem to have any positive value, and the way they die - burning - is very painful. Even if their death would be necessary for some greater good, the added pain of burning alive cannot contribute anything to that greater good.
4. They certainly gain nothing from the experience.

Why does God allow this pain and suffering? I never received an answer for that.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Yes, that is true.

Actually, my favorite question is somewhat different. I don’t like to use “babies”, because they already have a built-in tear-jerker connotation. I prefer the problem of animals perishing in a natrual disaster - like the recent California fires.

1. Animals are innocent of any wrongdoing.
2. Animals feel pain, though they do not feel mental anguish.
3. Their death does not seem to have any positive value, and the way they die - burning - is very painful. Even if their death would be necessary for some greater good, the added pain of burning alive cannot contribute anything to that greater good.
4. They certainly gain nothing from the experience.

Why does God allow this pain and suffering? I never received an answer for that.

Isn’t it pretty easy to say that God does not love the animals? Or that God created the world for humans and if some animals have to suffer to make what is the best possible universe for humans so be it? There isn’t really a problem with the animals suffering like with the babies. God is not supposed to have a special relationship with the animals so what does it matter if he does not love them or uses them as a means to an end? But this is not the case with the babies if God really loves them.

And the babies are more than a hypothetical. We know from history that many babies died after suffering without understanding.

 

[jmcrae]

And the babies are more than a hypothetical. We know from history that many babies died after suffering without understanding.

Yes, and when the people who needed to know asked God for the reason, He gave it to them. (For one poignant example, see the video that I posted a link to, above)

For most of us, it is just an academic question, and none of our business.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Considering that this is a hypothetical baby, there is nothing for God to explain, since God has not actually done anything to him.

When it comes to real babies, God does, indeed, explain it to those who need to know.

Get yourself a big box of kleenex, send everyone else in the house away on errands, and then watch this video.

Watch it all the way to the very end. Maybe Baby Eliot will help you find your answer.

Eliot does not fit the model I have been talking. Eliot lived over 3 months. Eliot was smiling and looked happy in some of the pictures. But what about the babies that die a few minutes after birth experiencing pain the whole time and even achieving full consciousness ? How did God love them? Please be specific as to them not other people around them.