You're working very hard to paint God as cruel. You must know that the Biblical picture is that all suffering and pain in this life are the consequence of human sin. God's design was functional and good, and it was humans who brought pain into the picture. Secondly, I have claimed that human bodies are, by necessity, vulnerable and not eternal. It sounds as if you believe that if God were truly God he would make babies impervious (somehow) to pain and suffering, protect them from harm, injury, and disease, etc., but, as I've said, this is not a possible design, the way of life, or how the earth must work. I agree with you that infants and babies have no capacity learn from pain, or deserve it for anything they've done. It's truly tragic. They are caught, like the rest of us, in the flow of the detriment of human sin, the cause-and-effect properties of life on earth, and the vulnerabilities of human flesh. These processes and effects don't define God as cruel, as I've already stated.

> Your issue is with regard to injury...and design. Could God have designed an environment without injurious events, or designed our bodies to be impervious to the injury. Am I right?

No. I agree with you that injurious events can be beneficial to SOME people - specifically those people who have the mental capacity to learn from them. A person can learn to overcome pain and suffering and become a better person. A person could be punished by pain/suffering and learn to act better, etc. My quibble is only with the pain and suffering that God has designed to be inflicted on infants and babies who do not have the capacity to learn from the pain and also who have not sinned sufficiently to be punished with pain/suffering/death.

So again, I largely agree with your arguments, but they ONLY apply to older humans, not at all to infants and babies who have no capacity to learn from pain or deserve it for anything they've done.

I get it. You're talking about design, not implementation; design, not intervention or protection—DESIGN. I've already presented to you that the design is geared towards life, renewal, diversity, beauty, and purpose. All of these natural events (rain, snow, glaciers, deserts, wind, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) have a beneficial role to contribute to life on the planet and its renewal. Granted, and you grant that too. Your issue is with regard to injury...and design. Could God have designed an environment without injurious events, or designed our bodies to be impervious to the injury. Am I right? I would say no for the following reasons:

1. These kinds of events are necessary to sustain the life that we have. You compare to heaven, but that's a different kind of life. These events (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) are necessary to sustain human life as we know it. They renew the earth with life-sustaining pieces.

2. Human bodies were created to be vulnerable and "perishable". All bodies are, for that matter. Planets are not eternal, nor are suns, stars, rocks. Scientists tell us our sun will burn out, and so will eventually the universe play itself out. Immunity to harm would change our psyche, our attitudes and lifestyles in many harmful ways. Vulnerability is not only essential for our survival modes, but also relationships, and I would even say that our vulnerability is one of the main factors that drives us to God, since we know that life is fragile and we are insufficient in and of ourselves. Our design as frail motivates us to work, learn, relate, seek, inquire, and pray.

Again we trace back to the problem of evil. Is God cruel or incompetent to create a world where evil would inevitably exist, or where nature would inevitably harm? Logically speaking, no, as I have already substantiated. Theologically speaking, no, because pain is a megaphone calling us to God. As C.S. Lewis says, "It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Only in our inadequacies will someone dare to seek what is adequate.

> heaven is a place where the occupants have chosen to be there, and so the design can be different. >The idea of heaven being a place that has been chosen is a generalized truth of the nature of the place and its access, not an absolutized universal applying to the babies who are brought there by a gift of grace.

Ok, so if it's not that the design of earth can't be different because of people choosing to go there (since babies don't choose to go to heaven), then what is it? Why exactly is God unable to create the earth without natural disasters?

> Are we blaming God when a tornado rips their house and kills their baby? People build on fault lines, in tornado alley, and on cliffs prone to mudslides.

I do find it problematic that God would design the earth in the specific way that he knew the family would move there and yet he chose to design that tornado to happen knowing it would kill the baby. But the problem of evil is much larger than that. There are many instances of the suffering and deaths of children that have nothing to do with the parents raising their children in a natural disaster prone area - like lightning strikes, storms, floods, earthquakes. In fact, almost anywhere you go there are going to be some sort of natural disasters that you can't avoid. And the point is that God knew exactly where everyone would be living and designed specific natural disasters with the perfect knowledge of where specifically they would wreak havok and injure and kill his innocent babies and children.

> It relates back to the problem of evil. You want God to intervene in weather patterns and geologic events to prevent injury.

No, please reread my question. Much of your answer is about intervention. My question is not at all about God preventing anything or intervening in anything. My question is limited only to his design and creation of the world - why he chose a design that includes natural disasters which injure and kill innocent babies when he could have chosen a different design.

> Or God must make sure that all such events only happen in places where humanity has chosen not to settle, so as to not interfere with our homesteading and traveling.

That's a possibility. Or he could design the world without natural disasters. Or natural disasters that only hurt adults. Or natural disasters that only happen on earth during time periods when no humans are alive on the planet. There are many options we can think of and we are mere mortals without the omniscience of God. Imagine how many different options he could think of!

> If we are to be human with free will (a necessity to humanity), and if the universe is moral (a necessity from God's an man's vantage point), then X amount of things have to be part of the picture. But it doesn't make God evil. If God were to stop all such things, humanity ceases, because that's the only choice if we take away free will and moral choice, even to the point of natural disasters.

Again, please re-read my question. Free will is not a factor because I am asking specifically about infants and babies - humans who's minds are not yet developed to be able to make choices or learn from trials or be deserving of punishments.

> all of these things—heat and cold, wind and fire, earthquakes, sun flares, tides, volcanoes—make life on earth possible.

Is God really limited in that way? Are you saying that God is unable to create a human body that could withstand certain temperatures? Or wind, or fire, etc? Are you saying God is unable to create humans that could survive on the moon, for example, where there are no natural disasters? I thought the Christian concept of God was more powerful than that.

It seems like there are many examples of planets/moons/etc. where there are no natural disasters. So God presumably has the ability to make those. And it also seems like God has the ability to alter people's bodies in different ways to be able to live in different conditions - like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Sampson, Jesus, etc. So it seems well within God's abilities to figure out a way to create a place for humans to live where infants and babies are not killed by his specifically-designed natural disasters.

> God doesn't cause natural disasters. The earth he created includes them, but that doesn't make God immoral.

How exactly does God not cause natural disasters? He designed and created them with the perfect knowledge of when they would occur, with what severity, where they would strike, who exactly they would injure and kill, and every other minute detail down to the millisecond and molecule, right? And then he put it all into motion. How is that not causing the natural disasters? Let me give you an example: Suppose a bomb expert designed and built a bomb with the specific intention of blowing up a building and he spent years mapping out exactly how the bomb would work, when it would go off, what damage it would do, etc. And then when the time he planned for came, he lit the fuse and 5 minutes later it exploded and did exactly what he had designed it to do. In that instance would you say the bomb expert caused the damage to the building? He designed it and put it into motion. How is that different from God designing the earth with specific natural disasters and putting it in motion when he has perfect knowledge of what the result will be?

> What are your thoughts on babies who die?

Babies who die go to heaven. There is evidence in about 5 places in the Bible that God does not hold accountable those who are not morally capable. So any baby who dies get a free ticket. The idea of heaven being a place that has been chosen is a generalized truth of the nature of the place and its access, not an absolutized universal applying to the babies who are brought there by a gift of grace. (To treat them otherwise would be brutally unjust.)

> the evil I was referring to was more specific

I know, but I've already dealt with that in some respect, talking about the necessarily moral nature of creation and the reason behind cause and effect. The earth turns, and it accomplishes many beneficial effects in doing so. But there's also a place in the heart of the US where tornadoes form because of it. We know this, and yet people choose to build houses there anyway. Are we blaming God when a tornado rips their house and kills their baby? People build on fault lines, in tornado alley, and on cliffs prone to mudslides. Is God evil? Science will confirm that earthquakes and volcanoes are necessary for life on the planet. Does this require the conclusion that God is evil?

It relates back to the problem of evil. You want God to intervene in weather patterns and geologic events to prevent injury. Let's think this through. So he needs to physically stop any family from building in a place, or presumably walking in a place, where such an event will occur. Or God must make sure that all such events only happen in places where humanity has chosen not to settle, so as to not interfere with our homesteading and traveling. Or, I guess, he needs to give sufficient warning somehow to all families within reach of the disaster so as to give them adequate time to evacuate, or at least the opportunity to do so. That would make him just? Would we expect him, if he's really just, to do the same with other tragedies—people slipping and falling off cliffs, walking in front of cars, walking into a zone where they can contract a disease? "If God was really good, he would have stopped me." We are turning humans into mechanized robots, forced in this direction or that, prevented (mysteriously) from here or there, bodies under the control of a force. If we want A, we'll also want B, and if we get that, I think we'd want C & D. Where does it stop? That's where I was explaining before that God can allow X amount of such things in exchange for us being human, because there are no other choices. If we are to be human with free will (a necessity to humanity), and if the universe is moral (a necessity from God's an man's vantage point), then X amount of things have to be part of the picture. But it doesn't make God evil. If God were to stop all such things, humanity ceases, because that's the only choice if we take away free will and moral choice, even to the point of natural disasters. all of these things—heat and cold, wind and fire, earthquakes, sun flares, tides, volcanoes—make life on earth possible. But when you ask God to make sure that no baby or child ever gets hurts in one is to change the nature of humanity in greater disastrous ways.

If God were to intervene in many, continual, and unpredictable ways preventing injury to children and babies (along with B, C, & D), science would be impossible, and therefore so would much knowledge. Science depends on regularity, predictability, repeatable patterns, etc. If God were habitually in a mode of intervention, at one turn after another, the elements upon which science is based would be out the window. So much of life, by necessity, counts on God NOT intervening often and habitually. It doesn't make him evil to design the earth the way he did.

> Are you saying that God's designed natural disasters which injure and kill children are not just, BUT at least there's SOME goodness that comes out of it (people helping each other)?

God doesn't cause natural disasters. The earth he created includes them, but that doesn't make God immoral.

> Therefore if we believe in the existence of God, and that God has made himself known to us, we need to rationally consider which proposed revelation of Himself is the most reliable and accurate of all the revelations presented as true. They cannot all be true, because they contradict each other radically and deeply. Books and people can claim whatever they want; that's where reason, assessment, and experience have to weigh the playing field. The claim doesn't make it so, but the evidence.

I really like this and I completely agree with you. So how do we determine that the Biblical description of God is correct? What evidence have you relied on to come to this conclusion?

> Yes, but heaven is a place where the occupants have chosen to be there, and so the design can be different.

Interesting. And this is a little off topic, but what are you thoughts on babies who die? They never experience free will but my understanding is that many Christians believe they will go to heaven (especially if they were baptized). How could they be happy in heaven without growing up on earth and experiencing evil and choosing good?

> Oh, God didn't design evil. Evil was a necessary element in the picture because of free will, as already explained.

Ok, but the evil I was referring to was more specific (not the general idea of evil which you seem to be addressing). I was specifically referring to the fact that God designed the earth with the perfect knowledge that his design would result in the suffering and deaths of millions of innocent infants and babies. That seems to be evil, and God was certainly the author of it.

> God doesn't want babies, or anyone for that matter, to experience pain and suffering. Since people chose that course, God can't stop it completely without making us automatons, so what he does is redeem it with a state of affairs where evil is outweighed by good.

My question is specific to natural disasters injuring and killing babies and children. Babies do not choose evil. Evil just happens to them. I understand that people may hurt children, and that's evil, right? But why does God hurt children? Why did he design the earth in the way he did if he isn't evil?

> God doesn't cause natural disasters; they happen in the normal course of cause and effect.

But what is the cause? Isn't it God's creation? He designed the earth, meaning he designed the moving techtonic plates lava causing earthquakes and volcanoes. He designed the spinning of the earth and weather causing hurricanes and tornadoes, etc. Those natural disasters are a result of God's design of the earth, right?

> But when they do happen, we often see goodness seeping out of every crack of humanity to help our fellow man. It doesn't justify it ("...but it's ok..."), but it's how good redeems what was necessary to creation.

Are you saying that God's designed natural disasters which injure and kill children are not just, BUT at least there's SOME goodness that comes out of it (people helping each other)?

> I gave you my evidence: Reasoning based on the Bible, the character of God as revealed to us, and the nature of life on earth as revealed to us and in conformity with our experiences.

Why do you believe the biblical account is true?

Thanks for good dialogue.

> And why do you believe the Biblical description of him is true?

The only way we can know about the person of God, his/her/its character, and behavior is if God reveals himself to us. We cannot see spiritual beings or hear spiritual sounds unless the deity reveals himself. Therefore if we believe in the existence of God, and that God has made himself known to us, we need to rationally consider which proposed revelation of Himself is the most reliable and accurate of all the revelations presented as true. They cannot all be true, because they contradict each other radically and deeply. Books and people can claim whatever they want; that's where reason, assessment, and experience have to weigh the playing field. The claim doesn't make it so, but the evidence.

> I'm not sure I quite follow the argument that there must be evil so that there can be good.

Anything that God creates is by nature not God, since God is uncreated. Therefore anything that is created is less than God. God has free will, but because righteousness is his nature, He only chooses the good. Humans have free will, but because our nature is less than righteous, we have the ability to choose what is evil. The only way God can complete keep us from evil is to remove the choice, but that means we can't choose the good either, and therefore we are not moral beings. There must be evil so there can be good.

Another approach: God is love by nature; humans love by choice. The only way for "choice" to be real is if the choice is, um, real. Duh. Love is only love if it is chosen, and for choice to be real (and therefore love to be real) there has to be the choice to not love. If you remove the negative, you also remove the positive.

> Isn't heaven devoid of evil, and yet the ultimate good?

Yes, but heaven is a place where the occupants have chosen to be there, and so the design can be different.

> it doesn't answer the question of why God decided to be the author of evil.

Oh, God didn't *design* evil. Evil was a necessary element in the picture because of free will, as already explained. But God isn't the author of it. God's character is totally good, and he designed a creation that was good, but also with free will (which was also good, and necessary). But with free will came the possibility of evil, and that was chosen against the desire and warnings of God.

> If god, for whatever reason, wanted babies to still experience pain and suffering

God doesn't want babies, or anyone for that matter, to experience pain and suffering. Since people chose that course, God can't stop it completely without making us automatons, so what he does is redeem it with a state of affairs where evil is outweighed by good.

> What good compensates it?

While it is necessary that there is moral evil in the world, from it comes all kinds of benevolence, empathy, human compassion, courage, fortitude, servanthood, and bonding. I'm not contending that God mandates natural disasters so that we can show kindness to each other. God doesn't cause natural disasters; they happen in the normal course of cause and effect. But when they do happen, we often see goodness seeping out of every crack of humanity to help our fellow man. It doesn't justify it ("...but it's ok..."), but it's how good redeems what was necessary to creation.

> What do you mean by a "self-contradictory universe?"

What I mean is a universe where evil by necessity is part of the picture, and yet evil by necessity is restricted from functioning. Evil can't be both necessary and unnecessary.

> And what evidence do you have that this is the best world he could have created? ... [W]hat evidence do you have that it is true?

I gave you my evidence: Reasoning based on the Bible, the character of God as revealed to us, and the nature of life on earth as revealed to us and in conformity with our experiences.

> It sounds as if your assessment of God's choice in what he created qualifies as a moral evil: He designed the earth knowing that his design would cause suffering and death, particularly of innocent infants. God had the ability to design however he wanted, and he chose the path of injury and suffering of innocents.

Yes, you got it.

> God is a moral being. Morality is part of his nature (the Bible says he is good and just).

And why do you believe the Biblical description of him is true? Lots of books claim lots of things, of course.

I'm not sure I quite follow the argument that there must be evil so that there can be good. Isn't heaven devoid of evil, and yet the ultimate good?

> What God has created is a state of affairs such that both good and evil are present by necessity, but the good outweighs the evil. The good and evil together, then, are a good state of affairs, and the only possible state of affairs, if humans are to be humans and not robots.

Even if this were true, it doesn't answer the question of why God decided to be the author of evil. If god, for whatever reason, wanted babies to still experience pain and suffering he could have designed a world without natural disasters and still accomplished that because there are people who exercise their free will and hurt babies and children. And mistakes happen that injure and cause suffering to babies and children, etc. But God went a step further and decided to design a world that involved natural disasters which he knew would injure and kill babies and children. Why did God choose to author this evil?

> And what's the purpose of babies and infants experiencing the evil of suffering and dying from natural disasters? They're no more likely to experience happiness if they experience the evil of suffering from being burned or crushed or drowned in a natural disaster, are they? Their brains aren't fully developed so they can't learn from suffering and pain. So why does God dole out the evil on them?

> Hence, any evil that is outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it.

So are you saying that natural disasters injuring and killing babies is evil, but it's ok because there is a good that compensates it? What good compensates it?

> At bottom, therefore, there is no better design, and it is not within his power to create a self-contradictory universe.

What do you mean by a "self-contradictory universe?"

And what evidence do you have that this is the best world he could have created? I understand that you are asserting that, but what evidence do you have that it is true?

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I went in the wrong direction. Let me try it this way. It sounds as if your assessment of God's choice in what he created qualifies as a moral evil: He designed the earth knowing that his design would cause suffering and death, particularly of innocent infants. God had the ability to design however he wanted, and he chose the path of injury and suffering of innocents. If I'm right about that (third time's a charm?), I'll use that as a launch point.

God is a moral being. Morality is part of his nature (the Bible says he is good and just). It was God's desire, therefore, to create a world reflecting his goodness: where morality was real, and therefore where attributes necessary for humanity, viz., love, kindness, justice, forgiveness, et al., were present and functional. In order for morality to be reality for created beings, however, both good and evil (like the aforementioned light and darkness) must both be options. (He cannot create moral good and then causally mandate its enforcement, for then his creatures are not free, and therefore not truly moral.) Therefore the only possibility (contrary to your "infinite number of designs" scenario) is to create a world of moral good but with the possibility of moral evil. The only alternative is to build a world devoid of evil, and therefore also devoid of good, and therefore devoid of choice, and therefore human beings are impossible. It is not possible that God could create a universe containing moral good without permitting evil.

Instead, he created what could be logically construed as the only possibly realistic design: a world of moral good containing free persons, and therefore also the possibility for moral evil. Logically (and humanistically) speaking, a world containing moral good (provided that it contains more moral good than moral evil) is better (other relevant factors being equal) than one containing natural good alone.

In keeping with the moral nature of creation, then, even the natural world plays out cycles of what are construed by us as "good" and "evil." (Of course, the Bible asserts that the world is only a destructive place because of the intrusion of sin.) What God has created is a state of affairs such that both good and evil are present by necessity, but the good outweighs the evil. The good and evil together, then, are a good state of affairs, and the only possible state of affairs, if humans are to be humans and not robots. Hence, any evil that is outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it. This means that God, as an omniscient and omnipotent being, in his goodness has designed an ideal world, where the presence of real evil (even in natural events) is necessary for the presence of real good, and where he can permit some evil to exist as long as there is a greater good at work. He can permit as much evil as he wishes as long as there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole, and this would be so even if it were within his power to create a "better" universe by excising some of all of the evil states of affairs. At bottom, therefore, there is no better design, and it is not within his power to create a self-contradictory universe.

If you read my question carefully, it's not at all about god intervening. This isn't a question about why didn't God stop Hitler, or why doesn't god prevent babies from dying in natural disasters. It's a question about why God designed the earth in the first place in such a way that he knew his design would cause the suffering and deaths of millions of his infants and babies by natural disasters. God had the ability to design the earth however he wanted. Among those infinite possible designs, for example, there would have been one that involved no injuries and deaths of infants and babies caused by natural disasters, and one that did involve injuries and deaths of children by natural disasters. And he chose the latter. Why?