Why did God create a world were babies are killed?

[jmcrae]

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?

Not at all. Unlike you, I can even name names.

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.

If I don’t know who we are talking about, how can I give an answer to that? God loves each of us individually - each person’s relationship with God is unique - different from all the rest.

 

[john_doran]

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.

ok - so how is that not an example of arguing from ignorance?

can we say the same about quantum gravity: namely that since no one’s been able to articluate a theory that unifies GR an QFT, that therefore there must be no such theory?

ateista:

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”.

you keep using examples of actions that are simply stipulated as evil; that’s begging the question (again)…

if you want to describe an analogous situation in the arena of human conduct you’d have to describe it with moral neutrality, since what we’re trying to determine is the moral nature of the conduct.

for instance, “you see a man push his 10 year old son violently to the ground for no apparent reason. did the man commit an evil act?”

the answer, of course, is “that all depends on why he did it”.

ateista:

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.

maybe so - but that doesn’t make the human any more morally culpable for the act of neglect; just because she, for example, pleads the fifth and refuses to explain herself doesn’t make her neglect immoral. the only thing that would do that would be if she neglected the child for no good reason. and her not revealing her reasons for the neglect has no impact on the moral nature of those reasons whatsoever.

ateista:

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

sorry, wrong again, at least when it comes to reasons for action; you might have a point if you’re talking about a scientific theory that predicts a certain particle as the result of a the decay of a larger particle (e.g. the never-before-observed proton decay). but the same simply and straightforwraddly does not hold for reasons for action, since “reasons” exist in the mind, and are not observable, but must be reported by the reasoner.

 

[john_doran]

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.

ok: he brought them from nothing, and then brought them into heaven to be inexpressibly happy with him forever…

 

[ateista]

for instance, “you see a man push his 10 year old son violently to the ground for no apparent reason. did the man commit an evil act?”

the answer, of course, is “that all depends on why he did it”.

Not a good example. It might be justified under some very well defined circumstances. A better way to put this: a man slowly tortures his child to death: under no circumstances can that action be justified. Maybe killing his own child could be justified; for example if the child unknowingly would activate a device to wipe out the whole human race, a quick killing would be justified, but not a slow torture, ending in murder.

 

[john_doran]

Not a good example. It might be justified under some very well defined circumstances.

sigh. here we go again…

of course it can be justified under some very well defined circumstances: that’s the point.

and it’s a good example, because that’s precisely the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to god’s allowing terrestrial suffering: there may very well be good reasons for his allowing it. we (specifically: you) simply do not know.
atesita:

A better way to put this: a man slowly tortures his child to death: under no circumstances can that action be justified.

wow. you never give up, do you?

last time: you’re begging the question by STIPULATING that there is no possible justification for god’s allowing the suffering he allows.

any argument that concludes that god has no good reason for allowing suffering, and which arrives at that conclusion from the premise “there can be no good reason to allow the suffering we see around us” is a shining example of petitio principii. which is a logical fallacy.

you seem to have stopped engaging the reasoning in my posts, in lieu of merely reiterating the same point over and over and over and over again.

argumentam ad nauseum?

 

[Richard_Powers]

john doran, can you tell us God’s justification for every single baby that died in pain from disease and/or birth defect without understanding? Since you know that God loves every human you should be able to answer that question with a simple and clear answer, but you continue to fail to answer simple questions clearly and directly. Otherwise you should admit that you really don’t know and that you just making an assumption without evidence.

 

[ateista]

of course it can be justified under some very well defined circumstances: that’s the point.

and it’s a good example, because that’s precisely the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to god’s allowing terrestrial suffering: there may very well be good reasons for his allowing it. we (specifically: you) simply do not know.

Do you use the same argument when it comes to human beings? Someone committed an act, which is deemed immoral or criminal, but you are willing to let it go, because you assume that he might have had some justification for it?

If there is a justification, let’s hear it. If no such explanation is forthcoming, we must do what we always do; act on the available, though maybe incomplete information.

God’s benevolence is just an assumption, nothing more. If the events seem to contradict it, you disregard these events, and you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. That is a nice way to act. You do not wish to make hasty decisions, and wait for the justification. I agree with this principle… for a while. When the evidence is piling up, however, eventually one must give it weight. To keep on denying the evidence is irrational, and you pride yourself of being a rational person.

 

[catharina]

Positing God as all powerful and the Author of life should end any notion that 1) He can be fully understood and 2) that He would owe anyone anything, be it explanations (esp for those who choose to denigrate Him) or even one’s next breath. Accepting faith and with it, accepting the known and hidden nature of God Himself, is not a parlor game. Mocking God is among the most base forms of evil. Urging others to do the same is too.

 

[ateista]

Positing God as all powerful and the Author of life should end any notion that 1) He can be fully understood and 2) that He would owe anyone anything, be it explanations (esp for those who choose to denigrate Him) or even one’s next breath. Accepting faith and with it, accepting the known and hidden nature of God Himself, is not a parlor game. Mocking God is among the most base forms of evil. Urging others to do the same is too.

And why should this hypothesis be taken more seriously than any other god-concept? When atheists talk about God, they talk about a human concept, not the alleged being behind it.

There are innumerable human concepts, and some of them are non-sensical, like a “married bachelor”. It is up to the proponents of such concepts to present arguments for its validity.

If the arguments are to be taken seriously, they have to fulfill 3 criteria:

1. They must be meaningful and coherent.
2. They cannot contradict each other.
3. They cannot contradict what we know about the world.

It is not the purpose of this thread to go any further.

It is a sad day if an inquiry or asking for justification is considered “evil”, but allowing untold suffering without justification is not. No wonder that it is so difficult to engage in a rational conversation, when the reply is: “How DARE you question?”.

 

[catharina]

And why should this hypothesis be taken more seriously than any other god-concept? When atheists talk about God, they talk about a human concept, not the alleged being behind it.

There are innumerable human concepts, and some of them are non-sensical, like a “married bachelor”. It is up to the proponents of such concepts to present arguments for its validity.

If the arguments are to be taken seriously, they have to fulfill 3 criteria:

1. They must be meaningful and coherent.
2. They cannot contradict each other.
3. They cannot contradict what we know about the world.

It is not the purpose of this thread to go any further.

It is a sad day if an inquiry or asking for justification is considered “evil”, but allowing untold suffering without justification is not. No wonder that it is so difficult to engage in a rational conversation, when the reply is: “How DARE you question?”.

**As much as you might wish otherwise, it is not your prerogative to define the purpose of this thread. The OP presented the question: “Why did God create a world were babies are killed?”

The capital “G” presents God, the one and only, the Almighty. That you disagree with his terms is neither here nor there; clearly you like to argue the point ad nauseum, but it’s your point, not the point of the question. Perhaps you’re addressing a thread of your own imagining? If so, so be it, but you do not make rules for me.**

 

[ateista]

As much as you might wish otherwise, it is not your prerogative to define the purpose of this thread. The OP presented the question: "Why did God create a world were babies are killed?"

Indeed it is not. I am simply saying that going into a full discussion of God’s alleged nature would be a derailment, and I wish to avoid that - being against the forum’s rules - which I respect. Don’t worry, I intend to do that in a new thread.

The capital “G” presents God, the one and only, the Almighty. That you disagree with his terms is neither here nor there; clearly you like to argue the point ad nauseum, but it’s your point, not the point of the question. Perhaps you’re addressing a thread of your own imagining? If so, so be it, but you do not make rules for me.

The capital “G” simply denotes that we are talking about the Christian God-concept, not the innumerable gods invented by humans throughout the ages. It is simply a matter of helping to avoid confusion.

 

[catharina]

Indeed it is not. I am simply saying that going into a full discussion of God’s alleged nature would be a derailment, and I wish to avoid that - being against the forum’s rules - which I respect. Don’t worry, I intend to do that in a new thread.

The capital “G” simply denotes that we are talking about the Christian God-concept, not the innumerable gods invented by humans throughout the ages. It is simply a matter of helping to avoid confusion.

**

1. You couldn’t worry me on the longest day of my life. (It’s kind of amusing though to think you imagine otherwise.)
2. The capital “G” denotes that “we” are talking about God, the only God, recognized by any and all who recognize God. It is almost fascinating that you would deem it plausible that you could speak FOR God or INSTEAD OF God. (Almost fascinating.)
3. If you hope to understand faith, ask for faith. (Without it, you can “know” nothing since you choose a very limited “knowledge.”)
4. As I said, YOU cannot re-define the terms of the OP.**

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all who participated.