Why did God create a world were babies are killed?

[Richard_Powers]

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.

You do know that there are people that experience similar events and why but then lose all belief in the goodness of God. What is your response to them? That they did not need to know?

And it is more than an academic question. I care about the babies that died in pain without understanding. I am sorry you only see them as an academic question. Please try to keep in mind that they are people not questions.

 

[Richard_Powers]

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

The more I think about this comment the more offended I am. How dare you suggest that the suffering of human beings is just an academic question? Do you have no heart?

The suffering of human beings is all of our business. I guess I should call back my last donation to UNICEF because the suffering is none of my business.

Please tell me this was not a thoughtful comment and and you did not really mean it.

 

[mangy_dog]

How can this be? Death and things like earthquakes, floods, and disease have been around since before humans even existed.

Look,… a planet is going to behave like a planet. That is, the ebb and flow of ocean currents, the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth generating the winds sometimes very strong winds) along with the heating and cooling of the waters, movement of tectonic plates, volcanic activity below and above the surface etc etc etc. The planet has been evolving and just until modern times the industrial and technological human factor has contributed to that evolution. The fact that no other planet out there contains all not just some but all the factors to sustain life is pretty miraculous in itself. If this planet were any more perfect for human existence, it would be a virtual paradise.
Now,…God does not make bad things happen - point blank. Our knowledge of weather patterns and likely places of hurricane or earthquake activity gives us a somewhat accurate picture of where we should live and not live. Example: the San Andreas fault or hurricane alley. This message is probably not making sense to you or anybody else as much as I try. God has placed creation into motion, provided a means of salvation thru His Son Jesus Christ and does not interfere in any way, shape or form in our lives or the functioning of the planet. The Lord know all the possible outcomes and contingencies of all the myriad of decisions we could possibly make in our lifetimes - but will not interfere. I could be clearer but I don’t want to turn this into a marathon thread.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Look,… a planet is going to behave like a planet. That is, the ebb and flow of ocean currents, the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth generating the winds sometimes very strong winds) along with the heating and cooling of the waters, movement of tectonic plates, volcanic activity below and above the surface etc etc etc. …

Who decided how a planet behaves? Who set up the natural laws that led to earthquakes and disease?

 

[Hibblyn]

Then how can you know anything about God? How can you even know God exists or that existence has meaning in relation to God? How can you know that Bible and Catholic tradition accurately captures anything about God? You (or any human) can only see God through human reason and understanding.

In the age of Quantum Physics many/most of us struggle with the idea that nothing outside of myself is reliable. If we cannot rely on institutions, at least we can rely on our self. Mostly we doubt ourself, we feel at least we can rely on our own doubt. But can we doubt doubt?
Many of us seeking a reliable religious reality abdicate our personal responsibility by seeking the security of traditionalism or fundamentalism. This however, stunts personal spiritual growth and maturity. Both the Holy Bible (that the fundamentalist depend on fully), and Rome/Church(that the traditionalists depend on fully ) were meant to aid and guide us to greater personal responsibility.
Then there are those who have left all formal religious institutions in favor of their own personal form of religion. Many have turned to the New Age philosophies.
But even those who say I don’t believe in God, are constantly seeking the answers.
The Bible says that Faith is the way to God. In
The movie~ Polar Express (kids/Christmas movie) only those who “believed, heard the Christmas bells.”

Does this make sense??
Hibblyn

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying from the original topic. Please do not hijack the thread to discuss side issues. Start new threads if you wish. I will have to close threads that go too far off track.

 

[john_doran]

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.

sure, but you are simply ***stipulating ***that 3 is true (or, in your language, “a fact”); but the truth of (3) is precisely what’s in question. so you’re begging the question.

more simply, i reject your premise 3: it is simply not a “fact” of any kind that the kinds of events you’re talking about are necessarily the result of an unrectifiable divine will.
areista:

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.

you “showed” no such thing: per my above, you simply stated that it is a fact that god must be doing evil.

ateista:

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

wow. you need to brush up on your informal fallacies, my friend…you’re the one making the argument from ignorance, not me…

look, your reasoning is that there can’t be a good reason for god to allow suffering, because we don’t know what it is. more formally, you are claiming that the proposition “we don’t know what good comes from suffering” entails that the proposition “good comes from suffering” is false.

now here’s a serviceable enough explanation of argumentum ad ignorantiam :

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious can be reduced to the following form:

• Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
• Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
  An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that “absence of evidence is not proof of absence”: Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case.

sound familiar?

i wasn’t even making an argument, man - i was actually asking you why you believed that ignorance of some benefit entailed that no such benefit existed…

ateista:

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.

right. i’ll keep that in mind next time my son complains that something i’m making him do for his own good (eat vegetables; go to school; share; be polite) is too much suffering to endure.

ateista:

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

and you are (again) completely wrong; it is you who are (again) committing precisely the informal fallacy of which you accuse me.

i was simply (again) asking you why you seem to believe that absence of evidence entails evidence of absence.

ateista:

Intent has nothing to do with it.

you should tell the legislators that the basis for criminal and tort law - i.e. the intent of the person committing the deed - is wrong. you’re a revolutionary.

look, even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked…

ateista:

Knowing that the suffering exists, that it serves no higher purpose, and still allowing it to happen - that is evil.

sure. ***if ***that’s what god knows - namely that there’s no good coming from the suffering he allows. but whether or not that’s what god knows is precisely the question.

ateista:

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.

speaking of arguing from ignorance, here you go (again)…

i’ll ask you again: why is god obliged to tell us the reasons for the suffering that he allows to exist?

 

[seekerz]

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.

Hypothetical scenarios and generalizations preclude meaningful discussion of specifics. There has been great debate by scientists as to whether newborns can actually feel pain. The present consensus I believe is that thought it may be felt instantaneously, it is not remembered.

Therefore the question of whether such babies are capable of experiencing mental anguish/suffering in the usual sense of the word, is up for grabs - in my opinion. Much of a newborn’s response is reflex (such as grabbing a finger placed in it’s palm), so direct observations of reaction to pain may be totally misleading.

We cannot really know how much or indeed if, very young babies perceive discomfort or suffering in the same way adults do, so what’s the point of blaming God for something that may or may not be a reality? All we know is that they can fall victim to disease and deformity: whether that produces the same experience as adults i.e. mental anguish, is anybody’s guess.

 

[ateista]

i’ll ask you again: why is god obliged to tell us the reasons for the suffering that he allows to exist?

He is not obligated. But if no explanation is forthcoming, we have to make judgement based upon the available information, and use the duck principle: if it looks like evil, it is probably evil.

 

[john_doran]

He is not obligated. But if no explanation is forthcoming, we have to make judgement based upon the available information, and use the duck principle: if it looks like evil, it is probably evil.

sure. but it doesn’t look like “evil”; it looks like “people suffering without an obvious reason”…

and here we get back to one of my original observations about your duck principle: it only works if you know what a duck is. same goes for evil. trouble is, you’re using “evil” as a surrogate for “suffering for no good reason”; but, again, there being no obvious reason ***is not the same ***as it being obvious that there’s no reason.

which means you’re (again) making an inferential step from ignorance of a reason to the non-existence of a reason.

so. you can be as pithy as you want, but that doesn’t make your illogic any more logical.

 

[ateista]

sure. but it doesn’t look like “evil”; it looks like “people suffering without an obvious reason”…

You see, if all the people - whose best interest is to get a good reason to explain why that baby is suffering will lead to some greater good - are failing, then it is reasonable to assume that there is no such good reason.

To say that anything that we would immeditely deem evil if done / allowed by another human being should somehow be assumed good - just because God did / allowed it, is not rational. And you pride yourself as a rational human being, who does not resort to “faith”.

If a human would try a similar “defense” for neglecting a child who then died some gruesome death, he would be laughed out of court - and justly so.

Going back to the cute phrase of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, it certainly is evidence… it is just not proof.

 

[jmcrae]

The more I think about this comment the more offended I am. How dare you suggest that the suffering of human beings is just an academic question? Do you have no heart?

We are talking about a hypothetical “what if” question. If you want to talk about a real situation, then let’s do that, but up until now, it’s been completely hypothetical. (Hypothetical babies do not actually exist. That’s why God doesn’t tell us anything about them. God only deals with reality.)

The suffering of human beings is all of our business. I guess I should call back my last donation to UNICEF because the suffering is none of my business.

That has to do with real people - and by the way (off-topic, but you might like to know about this), your donation could have funded an abortion, thus causing the unnecessary suffering of an innocent real baby. This is one reason I don’t support UNICEF.

I support Christian Children International and World Vision, instead.

 

[Richard_Powers]

We are talking about a hypothetical “what if” question. If you want to talk about a real situation, then let’s do that, but up until now, it’s been completely hypothetical. (Hypothetical babies do not actually exist. That’s why God doesn’t tell us anything about them. God only deals with reality.)

Then let’s talk about any one of the countless babies throughout history that have died only minutes or hours after birth from disease or birth defects. These are real babies.

 

[jmcrae]

Then let’s talk about any one of the countless babies throughout history that have died only minutes or hours after birth from disease or birth defects. These are real babies.

Okay. Which one?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Okay. Which one?

Do want a name? I don’t have one. Do you really doubt that there were many babies that died only minutes or hours after birth throughout history? Many of children probably never even had names.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Actually, let’s talk about all of them. Since you know that God loves all humans, you should be able to clearly and directly explain how God loved each and everyone of these humans.

I await your clear and direct response.

 

[jmcrae]

Do want a name? I don’t have one. Do you really doubt that there were many babies that died only minutes or hours after birth throughout history? Many of children probably never even had names.

If we aren’t talking about someone specific, then we’re not talking about a real person - right?

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, let’s talk about all of them. Since you know that God loves all humans. You should be able to clearly and directly explain how God loved each and everyone of these humans.

I await your clear and direct response.

Each person is loved by God in the uniqueness in which He created them.

 

[Richard_Powers]

If we aren’t talking about someone specific, then we’re not talking about a real person - right?

We are talking about real people. Do you doubt that many babies throughout history have died just after birth from painful diseases and/or birth defects? It sure looks like you just don’t want to give a clear and direct answer to how God loved babies that died just after being born from disease and/or birth defects. Since you know that God loved it should be easy to directly and clearly answer how he loved them.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Each person is loved by God in the uniqueness in which He created them.

What does that even mean? Your answer above is just begs the question. All it says is that God loves everyone because God loves everyone. What specifically does love mean in that sentence? How specifically did God love the babies that died jsut after birth from disease and/or birth defects?

I don’t want some tired cliché that basically just says God loves everyone (as your quote above does). I want a clear and direct response on how God loved the babies that died jsut after birth from disease and/or birth defects.