Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[Wombat]

Considering the number of complaints/concerns that “God is 'evil'” because of the state of the world and/or God could not exist because of suffering and the state of the world, and/or that the world is not a safe, kind or just place, and/or that the universe is hostile/indifferent etc etc......

I am wondering, if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?

Especially considering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

 

[LuisDantas]

Considering the number of complaints/concerns that “God is 'evil'” because of the state of the world and/or God could not exist because of suffering and the state of the world, and/or that the world is not a safe, kind or just place, and/or that the universe is hostile/indifferent etc etc......

You mean the Problem of Evil? It is usually presented as evidence against the existence of God, not really as a complaint.

I am wondering, if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?

It is not. Not by itself. Such an act creates a corresponding responsibility.

Especially consid'ering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

I'm not sure why you are mentioning an afterlife here. Anyway, my answer is that a life does not need to be free of pain and suffering to be ethically worth the trouble.

What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

That is not a true calculation, but it is the subject matter of much of psychology and sociology. I particularly recommend Behavioral-Cognitive Psychology and a few assorted authors such as Alice Miller and Carl Rogers.

On Ethics, I recommend Peter Singer and the Utilitarists.

Clinical Philosophy is another fitting area worth reading about.

Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

It can be interpreted as such by some parents, and I guess it often is. But that is not nearly the most healthy way of dealing with parenthood.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't get compared to God often.
Anyway, the existence of good or evil seem irrelevant to the existence of gods.

 

[Wombat]

You mean the Problem of Evil? It is usually presented as evidence against the existence of God,.

That’s right...The existence of evil “is usually presented (by atheists) as evidence against the existence of God”...- God is unlikely to exist/does not exist because of the “Problem of Evil”- How could there be a loving God when evil exists?
So...taking God out of the picture...the “Problem of Evil” remains and the question reverts to the only consciously life creating Gods/Mini Gods in view- us.
If the “Problem of Evil” is “evidence against the existence of God”...is it not also evidence against bringing other beings into existence?

not really as a complaint..

Well...If conditions are so bad and 'the problem of evil" so pervasive that there could not be a God behind it all...then it's not a 'compliment' to the universe.

I thought the "problem of evil" was supposed to be a criticism of/complaint against the very notion of there being a God?

It is not. Not by itself. Such an act creates a corresponding responsibility..

“It is not” “ethical/ fair/ just” “consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being”?
What are the additional “corresponding responsibilities” that would make it “ethical/ fair/ just”?

I'm not sure why you are mentioning an afterlife here..

Because however the theist potential parent calculates/guestimates the likelihood and percentage of “pain and suffering” an offspring is likely to encounter they also (rightly or wrongly) factor in that no matter how bad life gets there will be an afterlife. What the prospective creator/parent believes regarding the ultimate outcome of having a child will/ought play a central ethical/moral role in determining wether or not to have one.

Anyway, my answer is that a life does not need to be free of pain and suffering to be ethically worth the trouble..

But, whatever the perception/measure of “pain and suffering”/evil...if it (life) is deemed “to be ethically worth the trouble” how can it (life with “pain and suffering”/evil) simultaneously be deemed as “as evidence against the existence of God”?
If life is so bad that God is unlikely to/or does not exist...how can it also be tolerable enough that it is “ethically worth the trouble”?
It reads as if the universe is an intolerable place if God made it but not so bad if He didn't.

That is not a true calculation,.

That is not a true calculation, but it is the subject matter of much of psychology and sociology.
Not sure what you mean by “not a true calculation”?....not hard math/Statistics?
I would have thought that any prospective parent (aside from those simply rutting and reproducing without forethought) would be looking to current conditions, projecting forward and “calculating the probability” that life would be ok for offspring. (Was this not the impetus behind the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation?).
But again, from the (frequently stated) atheist perspective that the world is generally such a place plagued by the ‘problem of evil’ to such a degree that God could not exist... why would one bring a child into such a world?

It can be interpreted as such by some parents, and I guess it often is. .

I’m struggling to envisage the circumstances (in a Godless universe- regardless of how parents “interpreted” giving birth) that creating a conscious living being could >not< be considered a Godlike act of creation.

But that is not nearly the most healthy way of dealing with parenthood.

In what way do the considerations posed make potential parenthood less healthy than the alternatives...and what are the (healthier) alternatives to considering the moral/ethical issues involved in the Godlike act of creation/parenthood ?

 

[Wombat]

I don't get compared to God often..

Would you care to elaborate on those memorable (earth shaking?) occasions on which you do?

Anyway, the existence of good or evil seem irrelevant to the existence of gods.

Not, it appears, to those atheists who see earthly/universal indifferance/hostility and the 'problem of evil' as a frequent arguement against the existence/possibility of God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not, it appears, to those atheists who see earthly/universal indifferance/hostility and the 'problem of evil' as a frequent arguement against the existence/possibility of God.

I think those atheists exist only in the minds of theists. (Perhaps in that way, they are like god).

 

[Alceste]

Wombat, you're confusing the rational deconstruction of theistic claims with qualitative assessments of God's character. Some theists claim that A) God is merciful, good, loving and just, B) God is the omnipotent creator of everything and can miraculously intervene in our lives, and C) God punishes sinners and non-believers with eternal burning of the flesh.

The problem of evil is a logical argument that these three claims can not simultaneously be true. Either god is a jerk, god is not omnipotent or there is no hell. One of the tenets has to go in order to create an internally coherent religious dogma. It's also of far more interest to theologians than atheists. To an atheist, the moral character, supernatural capabilities and rewards and punishments of god are of no interest except as logical tools for provoking contemplation in religious believers.

That said, I think you'll find theists breed far more prolifically than people who don't believe in an afterlife. Those who view this world as the last stop on the freight train to oblivion (and those who believe they will be back) tend to treat it better. That includes steps to address the problem of over-population, which results in resource scarcity, extinctions of other species, pollution and war.

So, yes, we generally accept that without a god to run the show, the health and well-being of our children, neighbours and environment is our own responsibility. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that makes us gods.

 

[Erebus]

I think those atheists exist only in the minds of theists. (Perhaps in that way, they are like god).

Am I misunderstanding something here? I've seen the problem of evil used quite frequently to disprove God (capital G).

Anyhoo, my personal take on it is that a good parent will do everything in their power to ensure the success and happiness of their children. As no human is omnipotent, this leaves room for flaws but does not necessarily mean procreation is unethical. For a supposedly omnipotent being however, anything less than perfection is inadequate (assuming of course this being considers us children).
Understand that I personally don't consider perfection to be a state of eternal bliss, I can appreciate challenges, but let's face it, we are left powerless in the face of some natural phenomena.

 

[Alceste]

Am I misunderstanding something here? I've seen the problem of evil used quite frequently to disprove God (capital G).

It's used to show the logical contradiction of the three main dogmatic pillars of a majority of Abrahamic sects: God is good, God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, and God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will. Not all three of these things can be true. Theists struggle with that endlessly. Atheists sometimes draw attention to the contradiction in debates, but it doesn't have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings in general. It only deals with the self-contradictory alleged characteristics of a single god-concept.

Anyhoo, my personal take on it is that a good parent will do everything in their power to ensure the success and happiness of their children. As no human is omnipotent, this leaves room for flaws but does not necessarily mean procreation is unethical. For a supposedly omnipotent being however, anything less than perfection is inadequate (assuming of course this being considers us children).
Understand that I personally don't consider perfection to be a state of eternal bliss, I can appreciate challenges, but let's face it, we are left powerless in the face of some natural phenomena.

I agree.

 

[Erebus]

It's used to show the logical contradiction of the three main dogmatic pillars of a majority of Abrahamic sects: God is good, God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, and God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will. Not all three of these things can be true. Theists struggle with that endlessly. Atheists sometimes draw attention to the contradiction in debates, but it doesn't have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings in general. It only deals with the self-contradictory alleged characteristics of a single god-concept.

Ahh I see

 

[Wombat]

Am I misunderstanding something here? I've seen the problem of evil used quite frequently to disprove God (capital G)..

Indeed. And this and similar boards abound with examples of “problem of evil” line of reasoning...apparently from atheists that “exist only in the minds of theists”

So, I don't get it either.

Anyhoo, my personal take on it is that a good parent will do everything in their power to ensure the success and happiness of their children..

Agreed. And such “good parents” do so from a position of reason and maturity that takes into consideration- perspective- the ability to compare the magnitude of events in the context of time and the requirements of developing a resilient, independent thinking and successful offspring.

Ie. For a child, falling at speed on a rough hard surface and skinning hands and knees, is an all consuming event of pain and suffering for which there is no consolation. It just >hurts< and the child screams at the pain and injustice of it all. Good parents will physically and emotionally tend the injury...but, having mature perspective and knowing what the passage of time does and brings to pain...the parent does not over react or seek to create a (false) “perfection” in which (wrapped in cotton wool) the child never experiences pain again. Nor does the good parent conclude by (false) reasoning that it would be better had the child not been born at all to suffer.

As no human is omnipotent, this leaves room for flaws but does not necessarily mean procreation is unethical..

But the question/issue does not just relate to “omnipotence”(the ability to make any change) but also of omniscience (the ability to know all events/outcomes).

Just as the good parent knows that not all pain/suffering is debilitating and pointless...so too an omniscient God would know that in the context of eternal life- no pain/suffering can do us harm.

The “problem of suffering” in the context of eternity would be no more than the problem of skun knees...and the good parent lesson- slow down and be more careful, still obtained.

>If< there is a God and >if< there is eternal life then even a lifetime of pain/ suffering pales into insignificance...but if there is no God, and the world is such a place of suffering to indicate/confirm there is no God...then there must be questions about the ethicality of bringing children into such a world.

For a supposedly omnipotent being however, anything less than perfection is inadequate.

Seems to presume creation, the universe, life is “less than perfection” and “inadequate”.

A proposition yet to be established/demonstrated and one with which I cannot concur. While the world is difficult and often painful...so too is mountain climbing, my job and childrearing...and all such sufferings I have come, with the passage of time, to look back upon as "perfect" experiences.

Begin imagining you entered a world devoid of some ills/sufferings and (because those do not exist) the remaining ills/sufferings come to the fore...imagine those removed and repeat process and you find that what was once a mere inconvenience (pimples, ingrown toenails, splinters) is now a major suffering because you no longer have broken limbs, appendicitis and hemaroids to compare it to.
Eliminate >all< physical pain/suffering in the pursuit of “perfection” and your left with jealousy and unrequited love.

What is the cut off point in the process of the elimination of suffering to create “perfection” and would the process achieve the desired end?

(assuming of course this being considers us children)..

“Heavenly Father”?....Seems so.
(My Father was a profoundly ignorant, unjust man who denied and refused my imagined and desired “perfect” world right up until I reached adulthood...then he made this miraculous transformation into someone who knew better all along ;-)

Understand that I personally don't consider perfection to be a state of eternal bliss, I can appreciate challenges, but let's face it, we are left powerless in the face of some natural phenomena.

Please identify the “natural phenomena” you have in mind and advise if anything like “perfection” would be achieved if we entered a world devoid of them. Would our sense of imperfection not immediately track to the next source of pain and suffering in the expectation that it too ought be removed?

 

[Wombat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shyanekh
Am I misunderstanding something here? I've seen the problem of evil used quite frequently to disprove God (capital G).

It's used to show the logical contradiction of the three main dogmatic pillars of a majority of Abrahamic sects: God is good, God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, and God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will. Not all three of these things can be true.

It's used to show the logical contradiction of the three main dogmatic pillars of a majority of Abrahamic sects: God is good, God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, and God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will. Not all three of these things can be true.
Indeed... “Not all three of these things can be true.” Nor is it necessary that “all three of these things” are accurate or reflective of reality or revelation.
“God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will” might carry weight in the Church of the Middle ages...but no matter how popular or widespread the notion...does not make it so. As a parent it is my “ineffable will” that the offspring obey “Thou shalt not pull the cats tail, thou shalt not jump from the roof thou shalt not poke thy brother in the eye”. The “torture” of scratches, sprains, bruises ensues from the self created hell of natural consequences of breaching divine Dad law. Any other hell Dad imposed is temporary, short lived and for training purposes only ;-)
While toddlers may be kept in line with simplistic tales of Boogey Men and Hell...mature adults receive and are capable of understanding far more complex and subtle parental advice and instruction.

Theists struggle with that endlessly.

?
Some may. Many, myself included, find “ God tortures people eternally for "sinning" against his ineffable will” to be a non starter/non issue long ago resolved.
No “struggle” at all.

Atheists sometimes draw attention to the contradiction in debates, but it doesn't have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings in general. It only deals with the self-contradictory alleged characteristics of a single god-concept.

Sorry. That doesn’t answer the question. The “contradiction” resides in- a/ The world is such a realm of suffering that God must be evil or does not exist and b/ The world is a tolerably good enough place to play God and bring a child into.
If God is Good is a “self-contradictory alleged characteristic” of God because there is a world of suffering then the non existence of God does not change or negate the nature of such a world of suffering.
Question remains- Why bring children into a world that a “good God” could not have created?

 

[Alceste]

Wombat, if your particular sect does not believe in hell, and does not believe your god is omnipotent, the problem of evil doesn't apply to your specific variant of theism. I don't expect you get many non-theists whipping that particular argument out to show you the error of your ways once you have explained that.

 

[Wombat]

Wombat, if your particular sect does not believe in hell, and does not believe your god is omnipotent, the problem of evil doesn't apply to your specific variant of theism..

And if my "particular sect" does believe God is "omnipotent" and does not believe in "hell"?

Guys....Unless the world is being likened to 'hell'...what the hell does hell have to do with the question?

If, for the sake of arguement, God does not exist and hell does not exist...we are still left with a significant number of atheists frequently arguing that the very reason God could not exist is that the world is such a suffering hell......and then creating new life to experience the suffering hell.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

No I think quite the contrary. Many theists have it indoctrinated into them to "honour thy father and thy mother" as if they are God's representatives on Earth so in effect they are mini Gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s right...The existence of evil “is usually presented (by atheists) as evidence against the existence of God”...- God is unlikely to exist/does not exist because of the “Problem of Evil”- How could there be a loving God when evil exists?
So...taking God out of the picture...the “Problem of Evil” remains and the question reverts to the only consciously life creating Gods/Mini Gods in view- us.
If the “Problem of Evil” is “evidence against the existence of God”...is it not also evidence against bringing other beings into existence?

No, it's not. I'm not really sure why you would think that the two things have anything to do with each other.

Bringing a child into the world is a good thing if the child will experience more good than bad. You don't have to be sure your child will have a perfect life before deciding to have one; you just have to believe that the child's life will be better than no life at all.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the problem of evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If, for the sake of arguement, God does not exist and hell does not exist...we are still left with a significant number of atheists frequently arguing that the very reason God could not exist is that the world is such a suffering hell......and then creating new life to experience the suffering hell.

No, that's not it.

The problem of evil doesn't need so much evil in the world that life isn't worth living. If any evil at all exists, then the problem of evil remains a problem.

 

[Wombat]

No, it's not..

Saying so does not make it so in the absence of any further explanation, argument, refutation.

I'm not really sure why you would think that the two things have anything to do with each other..

For the reasons already repeatedly explained and unrefuted-

If the “Problem of Evil” is “evidence against the existence of God” then removing God from the picture does not remove suffering/evil from the picture and leaves the question of the validity of bringing children into a world too evil to have been created by a ‘good’ God.

The “two things have to do with each other” because atheists have frequently made the “problem of evil” a rationale for Gods non existence...but if God does not exist the evil/suffering remains and children are created into it.

Bringing a child into the world is a good thing if the child will experience more good than bad..

Motherhood and Apple Pie are good things if Mother is not a Psychopath and the apple pie is not poisoned.

In all three instances-“ world is a good thing if”, “if Mother”, “if pie” are all (God only knows) >unknowns< going in and prior to the experience.... and the speculation is irrelevant to the issue.

>No one< can know what suffering a child might encounter in this world and if atheists repeatedly assert the existence of suffering/evil negates the possibility of a good God then the act of creating children is called into question.

You don't have to be sure your child will have a perfect life before deciding to have one; .

Does not touch on nor answer the point/question. While a prospective parent not only cannot “be sure” the child’s life will be “perfect” the prospective parent can be >absolutely certain< the child will experience pain and suffering.

What is more (for the atheist prospective parent) there is no hope of that child ever attaining “perfection” or anything like it in a heaven or afterlife.

Pain and suffering is however a >certainty<...and that pain and suffering is deemed by some to be evidence/proof God does not exist...bringing children into the certainty of pain and suffering then becomes a speculative Crap Shoot-

you just have to believe that the child's life will be better than no life at all..

“Believe”? You mean ‘Take it on faith’? that the odds are “life will be better than no life at all”?

If the world reflects such pain and suffering that a good God could not have created it isn’t mere “belief”/faith that life might be “better than no life at all” a blind Godlike gamble with someone elses prospective pain and suffering?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the problem of evil.

Sure it does...when atheists complain of the evil in the world the evil does not vanish if God is out of the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
If, for the sake of arguement, God does not exist and hell does not exist...we are still left with a significant number of atheists frequently arguing that the very reason God could not exist is that the world is such a suffering hell......and then creating new life to experience the suffering hell.

No, that's not it.

The problem of evil doesn't need so much evil in the world that life isn't worth living..

Still does not answer the point/question. How can the “problem of evil” be such that it’s not so bad as to make life not worth living but so bad that no good God could create or allow such conditions?

On the one hand atheists have the pain and suffering as being so bad that God cannot exist and on the other not so bad that we should not exist?

. If any evil at all exists, then the problem of evil remains a problem..

Yea...and it remains a problem even if God does not exist...in fact it’s a bigger problem because a potential life of ongoing and debilitating suffering has been the reality for billions throughout history and if >some suffering< is a certainty and >much suffering< is a possibility/probability and there is (from the atheist perspective) >no posibility< of any redemptive, rewarding or balancing afterlife?.........

What kind of- going on guesswork, suffering is certain but I “believe” life might be better than no life, let’s spin the creation wheel of fortune and see what happens- Mini God approach is that?

 

[Erebus]

Agreed. And such &#8220;good parents&#8221; do so from a position of reason and maturity that takes into consideration- perspective- the ability to compare the magnitude of events in the context of time and the requirements of developing a resilient, independent thinking and successful offspring.

Ie. For a child, falling at speed on a rough hard surface and skinning hands and knees, is an all consuming event of pain and suffering for which there is no consolation. It just >hurts< and the child screams at the pain and injustice of it all. Good parents will physically and emotionally tend the injury...but, having mature perspective and knowing what the passage of time does and brings to pain...the parent does not over react or seek to create a (false) &#8220;perfection&#8221; in which (wrapped in cotton wool) the child never experiences pain again. Nor does the good parent conclude by (false) reasoning that it would be better had the child not been born at all to suffer.

A human parent is incapable of preventing suffering in the world and thus has to ensure a child knows how to survive. An omnipotent God doesn't have this problem as anything harmful can be altered. To give you an analogy, if I have the resources to bring up my child in a good environment, I'm not going to instead bring them up in a ghetto so they learn how to survive a world they needn't be subjected to in the first place.

But the question/issue does not just relate to &#8220;omnipotence&#8221;(the ability to make any change) but also of omniscience (the ability to know all events/outcomes).

Just as the good parent knows that not all pain/suffering is debilitating and pointless...so too an omniscient God would know that in the context of eternal life- no pain/suffering can do us harm.

The &#8220;problem of suffering&#8221; in the context of eternity would be no more than the problem of skun knees...and the good parent lesson- slow down and be more careful, still obtained.

>If< there is a God and >if< there is eternal life then even a lifetime of pain/ suffering pales into insignificance...but if there is no God, and the world is such a place of suffering to indicate/confirm there is no God...then there must be questions about the ethicality of bringing children into such a world.

Again, I personally have no problem with there being challenges to overcome, it's the needless suffering that I don't understand an omnimax God allowing. I also don't understand why a God that offers us eternal life after death also provides us with this seemingly arbitrary one.
Now an experimenter God would perhaps make sense (let's see how these creatures do in this environment), but that would rule out it being all loving an omniscient. I can also understand an all loving God trying to balance out the actions of a malevolent god (and the countless variations on this theme), but that would rule out the possibility of an all loving and all powerful God.

As far as there being no god/afterlife etc and the ethics of brining up children is concerned here, I think you're maybe misunderstanding the point being raised. Few people would claim the world is entirely Hellish, it's the fact that there is needless suffering at all that brings the omnimax God concept into question. The world could be very nearly perfect, yet any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God.

Seems to presume creation, the universe, life is &#8220;less than perfection&#8221; and &#8220;inadequate&#8221;.

A proposition yet to be established/demonstrated and one with which I cannot concur. While the world is difficult and often painful...so too is mountain climbing, my job and childrearing...and all such sufferings I have come, with the passage of time, to look back upon as "perfect" experiences.

Begin imagining you entered a world devoid of some ills/sufferings and (because those do not exist) the remaining ills/sufferings come to the fore...imagine those removed and repeat process and you find that what was once a mere inconvenience (pimples, ingrown toenails, splinters) is now a major suffering because you no longer have broken limbs, appendicitis and hemaroids to compare it to.
Eliminate >all< physical pain/suffering in the pursuit of &#8220;perfection&#8221; and your left with jealousy and unrequited love.

What is the cut off point in the process of the elimination of suffering to create &#8220;perfection&#8221; and would the process achieve the desired end?

I did presume creation yes, I assumed you believe God created the universe. I would also say that life is indeed less than perfect (out of interest, what are your thoughts on that?) and therefore if an omnimax God exists, it is inadequate.

As for the rest, I'm not convinced you're stretching your imagination as far as omnipotence is concerned. Removing all suffering would lead to jealousy? Why? Remove jealousy too. If you're omnipotent you aren't limited.
Now like I mentioned, I would personally still want some form of challenge, just not insurmountable challenges. Now, to ensure every individual on Earth had their own unique form of perfection would be incredibly difficult, unless of course you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

Please identify the &#8220;natural phenomena&#8221; you have in mind and advise if anything like &#8220;perfection&#8221; would be achieved if we entered a world devoid of them. Would our sense of imperfection not immediately track to the next source of pain and suffering in the expectation that it too ought be removed?

I'm not going to reel off a list as I'd be writing for weeks and still not cover everything with this in mind I'll present just one choice phenomenon that would seem to contradict the notion of an omnimax god simply presenting us with challenges.

Harlequin ichthyosis is something which we have only recently been able to treat. I won't post pictures or too much info on it as it really is quite a horrific condition and I don't want to upset anybody. If you are interested though, you can google it.
With the exception of the lucky few with access to treatment, infants with harlequin ichthyosis rarely live more than a week. These individuals had no chance at life through no fault of their own, if this is considered a challenge to them it is most certainly an insurmountable one.
Now I'm going to assume an answer from you here, so I apologise if it wasn't what you were going to say. Some people who believe in your concept of God will claim that this isn't a challenge for the individual, but for humanity as a collective. Fair enough. However, it does mean that the infant in question was born to be a sacrifice in a time where there is currently nothing that can be done to help them (something an omniscient God would be aware of). I fail to see how a loving God would then allow this to happen, it creates an individual with no chance of help in a world in which nobody knows what to do about the condition. Rather than allow the child to have the condition so that humanity can learn how to overcome it, why not get rid of the condition altogether or at the very least provide the means to treat it.

I'm sure a quick google search can provide a host of similar examples, but for the sake of simplicity I'll just stick with that one for now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

“Believe”? You mean ‘Take it on faith’? that the odds are “life will be better than no life at all”?

If the world reflects such pain and suffering that a good God could not have created it isn’t mere “belief”/faith that life might be “better than no life at all” a blind Godlike gamble with someone elses prospective pain and suffering?

No, it doesn't. You're not getting my meaning. There are two questions here:

1. Is this world the best of all possible worlds?

If the answer is "no", then we have the problem of evil: the world is imperfect, therefore it cannot have been the creation of a perfect God.

2. Is this world better than no world at all?

If the answer is "yes", then we are morally justified in bringing new people into the world. While life might not be perfect, it's better than not being born at all.



There's quite a wide gap between "the best of all possible worlds" and "better than no world at all". When we conclude that we're in this gap, it's reasonable to also conclude:

- that God is imperfect (or doesn't exist)
- that having kids can be a good thing

And that's how your dilemma gets resolved.