• God Loves Abortion!

    Here’s one I posted on Debunking Christianity some time ago:

    God Loves Abortion!

    Or it is necessary for foetuses to die for a greater good. Well that’s certainly one of the conclusions that must come from the statistics for natural, spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages; abortions that God has the power to stop, and seemingly designed in to the system in the first place in actualising this biological world.

    The statistics for miscarriages are notoriously difficult to assess completely accurately. This is mainly due to the fact that many miscarriages go unreported due to simply not even being known by the mother.

    So why am I writing about this? Well because, statistically, it means that anywhere up to 75% of all pregnancies, of all fertilised eggs, die. This is a staggering number of pregnancy losses (for example, it is estimated that 3 out of 4 eggs that are fertilized do not fuse their DNA correctly, and therefore either do not attempt to implant or fail at implantation – see attached image taken from here). Of course, being exact on these numbers is rather academic. Whether it be 50 million a year in the US or 25 million is irrelevant since both numbers are ridiculously high!

    The reason for talking about this is twofold. Firstly, for people who critique abortion on religious grounds, it makes somewhat of a mockery of their arguments. Secondly, again from a religious perspective, it does make God look a little callous. Nay, brutal and unloving.

    So let’s explore these issues.

    God is supposedly omnipotent, all-powerful; and omnibenevolent, all-loving. We also hear very often how terrible clinical abortions are. Now I don’t want to investigate clinical abortions per se but I do want to look at the standards that Christians adopt when approaching abortion, and then when they evaluate their perfect God. The general approach, rightly or wrongly, is that abortion is the murder of human beings. If this is the case, then the death, at the hands of other humans, of any and every embryo from blastocyst onwards, is bad, abhorrent and so on.

    Given this state of affairs and given this appraisal of the ethics of abortions, let us then look at the God scenario, from whence Christians obtain their morality, and who supposedly objectively grounds morality.

    Let us assume that somewhere between 60% and 75% of human embryos are fertilised and subsequently die naturally. As mentioned, the numbers aren’t so relevant, though the sheer volume does make you stop and think a little harder. This raises these points:

    1) God has the ability to stop this from happening
    2) By allowing it passively, he is actually actively declaring that the deaths serve a greater good
    3) The manner in which these deaths serve a greater good is necessary for this greater good. In other words, there can be no other way that this greater good can eventualise which causes less suffering, otherwise god, as an all-loving being, would have chosen the alternative option.
    4) The vast majority of these deaths go unknown to anyone in the world. Thus the deaths can have nothing to do with humanity and our ‘journey’, begging the question as to exactly how they can serve such a ‘greater good’ purpose.
    5) Since such deaths occur on such a scale, and no decent reason is forthcoming, then perhaps foetal life isn’t as sacrosanct as many claim.

    The standard Christian response to issues such as these which fall into the category of the Problem of Evil is to offer the ‘Omniscience Escape Clause’, as John has so often talked about:

    We’ve heard this escape clause so many times before. “My ways are not your ways,” an ancient superstitious canonized Biblical text says of God. “How do we know what an omniscient God might do?” an apologist chimes in. It could be how God purportedly communicated to us in ways that are indistinguishable from anything else we see in the ancient world, or the tragedy of the Haitian earthquake, or a child suffering and soon to die from Leukemia. How can we judge an omniscient God’s ways we’re asked over and over, with an implied “We can’t.” The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God’s ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he’s doing. It’s that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.

    This posits that we cannot know the mind of God, or would not understand the reasons as to why such evil must exist. This again begs the question as to what kind of reason could be beyond our comprehension, and what kind of reason could actually justify death on such a massive scale. Even if, by some appeal to our idiocy, we cannot understand through cognitive deficiency as to why these deaths must occur, then it would be appropriate for God to at least let us know that these deaths aren’t in vain; that they DO provide a mechanism for achieving a greater good. Some kind of revelation, one way or another, would be decent.

    What we come to, as a conclusion to this scenario, is this:
    either God is not omnibenevolent;
    or God does not exist;
    or embryos are not so sacred and arguments over what defines personhood are called for;
    or that millions of foetal deaths a year, unknown to humanity, are necessary for a greater good.

    Of all those options, the last one is by far the most improbable, and yet it must be the one adhered to by most, if not all, Christians (whether they recognise this or not).

    I challenge Christians to come on here and defend this allowance in light of pro-life ethics. And please don’t resort to the ‘we can’t know the mind of God’ feebleness as wrapped up in the Omniscience Escape Clause.

    Category: God's CharacteristicsProblem of Evil


    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • JohnM

      Sounds like you have been playing too much Mass effect. Humans don’t have the genophage ;)

      Are you seriously suggesting, that 60-75% of all women who get a positive on a pregnancy test, never get to the point of giving birth, because of natural causes? That would place humans in just about the same category as Krogans.

      Without having looked at the numbers, I think you’ve got it wrong. The hard part is getting a positive test. But once you got that, you’re pretty much certain to give birth.

      Most people struggle with pregnancy, before the positive test, because they cannot get a fertilized egg going. Because of previously having had sexual diseases.. Or smoking.. Or too little or too much body fat. Or damage, caused by previous provoked abortions actually…

      Think about it… People pay huge sums of money for fertilisation. And usually you only get 3 chances. If 60-75% failed after a positive test, then fertilisation would be a complete waste of money. And hardly any would give birth.

      Also… the only ones who would need an abortion, would be the 25% who were still pregnant after the 20ish week. It just doesn’t add up.

      • JohnM

        I just looked up some numbers.

        Woman <35
        47.6% of all fertilization attempts, result in pregnancy.
        41.4% of all fertilization attempts, result in live birth.

        87.5% of those who got pregnant in that age-group, did give life birth. And keep in mind, that these are woman who are already have difficulties. So some of these are bound to be abortions or because of complications.

        When it comes to the worst group, the 41-42 age group, then it's a bit different.

        Only 1 in 5 attempts results in a pregnancy positive. But still 61.4% of those pregnancies, results in a live birth.

        • JohnM

          Also, it’s as if you’re blaming God for every miscarriage.

          The pregnant woman sitting in the front-seat, when the airbag went off.. +1 “miscarriage” statistics.

          The pregnant woman who wouldn’t give up smoking.. +1 “miscarriage” statistics.

          The pregnant woman who wouldn’t give up drinking.. +1 “miscarriage” statistics.

          The pregnant woman who was drunk and fell down the stairs.. +1 “miscarriage” statistics.

          The woman who have had 3 abortions and suddenly wanted a child. +1 “miscarriage” statistics.

          Is God’s design really responsible for those miscarriages?

      • Jonathan MS Pearce


        I think you need to read it again. Most people lose fertilised eggs without ever realising so. This is not about IVF, this is about natural conception, and fertilised eggs not succeeding. Whether it be vanishing twins, or Losing a blastocyst, it’s the same issue. Click on the image.

        But,a s mentioned, the stats are rather academic because whether it be 60 million in the US or 100,000, the point entirely remains. God has the power to stop them fertilising in the first place, or to stop them dying, and chooses not to do so.

        • JohnM

          Well the image is 320×259 when I click on it. It’s kinda hard to read, so I’m going to guess what it says:

          “You can only know fertilization occurred, if you doing infinity treatments.”

          Look… All you need to do, is to pee on pregnancy test, 2 weeks after you’ve missed your period. Woman do that regularly, if they miss a period.

          As for anything prior to a positive pregnancy test… I don’t see why anyone would argue, that that is life. And only after a positive pregnancy test, does it make sense to talk about abortion.

          In my view, whether the sperm cell fails to reach the target. The egg is “bad”. Or the 2 of them fail to produce a viable pregnancy.. To me that’s the same thing.


          “God has the power to stop them fertilising in the first place, or to stop them dying, and chooses not to do so.”

          In my view, it only makes sense to talk about death, after a positive pregnancy test. I don’t view failed attempts to get pregnant, as death. If I did that, I would have to consider every time a woman had a period, the death of a human being. And likewise, for all the male sperm that never produce a pregnancy, because it ended up in a condom. It makes no sense to talk about death in that way.


          As for death in the world… You can’t just remove death from a fallen world. You either have to wipe the plate clean. Or try to save the patient.

          And God did not create the world with sin and death. Rather we read in Romans 5:12:

          “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned”

          Sin and death is the enemy. The goal is for death “to be no more”, as we read in revelation. And God has already addressed that, with his special rescue mission. Now we are just waiting on the last patients to decide, whether they want to accept the offer or not.

          • Jonathan MS Pearce

            It is linked in the text. I’m not sure you have carefully read the text, have you! Don’t kneejerk respond. Read, assimilate, cogitate, understand.

            Look, Canada has just tried to pass a motion on life starting at conception. The religious right believe life starts at conception, generally, and many believe that this is when the soul ‘attaches’. Half of the point of this piece is to show that the majority of cases of natural abortions etc happen without the woman even realising they were pregnant. These are blastocysts or very early embryos.The stat I gave was this:

            It is estimated that 3 out of 4 eggs that are fertilized do not fuse their DNA correctly, and therefore either do not attempt to implant or fail at implantation. Your period will come as expected in that case.

            SO this is in the first week. It is very hard to measure this so we can only go on estimates. Even if these figures are all out by a magnitude of 50% that would still mean an incredible amount of ‘potential human being’ wasted.

            And God could have stopped this. There is no good reason because humans don’t even know this is happening. So theodicies fail to work.

            The fact that these are succefully fertilised eggs is important. It is not, as you seem to think, sperm ‘missing’ the egg – these are fully fertilised eggs which either have faulty DNA fusing, or unsuccessful implantation. And this only covers the early, early losses. Your misunderstanding is entirely shown by this quote:

            “In my view, it only makes sense to talk about death, after a positive pregnancy test. I don’t view failed attempts to get pregnant, as death. If I did that, I would have to consider every time a woman had a period, the death of a human being. And likewise, for all the male sperm that never produce a pregnancy, because it ended up in a condom. It makes no sense to talk about death in that way.”

            These aren’t attempts to get pregnant. These are actual pregnancies which are naturally terminated in their early stages.

            As for your other stuff, I mean, where to start!?

            “As for death in the world… You can’t just remove death from a fallen world. You either have to wipe the plate clean. Or try to save the patient.”

            Obviously death serves a purpose or God is the ultimate psycho. How can deaths, which nobody knows about, and which people have no influence over (it is, for the main part, just nature – there are millions of failed implantations in healthy, non-smoking women, a year).

            Every attempt you make to rationalise this appears to be exactly what it is – very, very ad hoc.

            • JohnM


              If you want to debate Christianity, then you have to do with within the framework of Christianity. You can’t just say “Well I believe that God could just snap his fingers and remove all evil and death.”

              Why? Because that is not consistent with the framework of Christianity. That is no consistent with what we read in the bible. It’s a straw-man of our position. And it makes no sense to debate a straw man.

              It’s clear from the bible, that sin and death is a very serious thing. “No forgiveness for sin without bloodshed”. That’s why they sacrifice animals in the old testament. Something has to die, to make sin “go away”. Someone has to take the place, and pay the price of sin, aka Death. And God deals with sin in the end, by sending his own Son to earth, to die, for our sins. Then resurrects him, that he can become our saviour. That is Gods solution to death, even though it hasn’t yet been fully implemented in the worlds software. We are still somewhere in-between 2.0 and 3.0, with the garden of Eden being 1.0.

              Remember that cartoon the other day about Abraham? If God knows the future, then Isaac were never in danger. God would have know, that Abraham was never to go though with it. So why did God make Abraham go though that? Because God wanted Abraham to understand the sacrifice of Christ. You see.. in the end, it wasn’t Isaac, that ended up getting sacrificed. Rather, God put his own son, though something similar, for the sake of the children of Abraham. And God wanted Abraham to understand what that meant… That it wasn’t just snapping your fingers. He wanted Abraham to understand that sin and death, is a very serious thing.

              The only way, God could have “stopped it”, was to wipe the plate clean, after Sin and death had entered the world of Man. God decided to save the patient instead. That is the framework . And outside of that, it makes little sense to debate Christianity.

              Now we can debate when life starts.. what death is… “Is death, cell death in plant life” and so on.. But allow me to just pull the rug on you..

              I actually expect to see death. I expect to see death in fertilized embryos. I expect to see death in unborn children. I expect to see death among babies. I expect to see death among teenagers. I expect to see death among adults. I expect to see death everywhere, because it is consistent with what I read in the bible, about a fallen world. And I have no trouble explaining the existence of evil, with in the framework of Christianity. The bible even goes as far as calling Satan, the ruler of this world – John 12:31.

              I’m sure that you are familiar with Stephen Law and his “evil god” thesis. Now, on an earlier program of Unbelievable, before he debated WLC, he actually talked about about it, and at the same time told us, that it would be invalid, should one have both an evil god and a good God at the same time. Because then evil god would explain evil. And good God would explain God. The funny thing was, that he then turned around and attempted to use it to discredit Christianity.

              Why is that funny? It’s funny, or sad, because he seems completely unaware, that within the framework of Christianity we actually do have that.. God and Satan. Satan is the opposer. Satan, the god of this world/age, as we read in – 2 Corinthians 4:4

              Short version: I don’t see why we wouldn’t see death everywhere in the world, based on what we read in the bible. And I don’t see that this disproves good God in any way, based on what we read in the bible. I don’t see that it proves Abortion to be a good thing, And I don’t see, that death served a purpose of God, in the garden of Eden, because it wasn’t present ( and I have already quoted Romans 5:12 ). I don’t see Death serving God, when it is described as an enemy of God, in the bible, the very thing that is going to be defeated in the end.

              As for abortion.. Well the real issue of abortion, is not, “should anyone abort 2 week old fertilized embryo?”. “Should anyone use condoms?”. That’s not what you see on the signs and commercials from the pro life movement. They tend to show pictures of very developed unborn children. Usually with their hand and legs torn off, and then dumped in a trash-can, as if they were human trash. That’s where the real “meat” of the debate is. And most pro-abortion folks, can’t stand such pictures, because it reminds them what abortion really is.

              As for myself. I do have very strong options about abortion. And I find it hard to understand, how anyone could look as such pictures, as I described above, and tell themselves “Well that’s perfectly normal. What’s wrong with that?”. But I wouldn’t mess with any laws in my country. I think everyone must make their own choice about it. After all, I’m not responsible for their own choices. They are.

            • Jonathan MS Pearce

              OK, let me lay it out like this:

              1) Over 60 % of all fertilised eggs fail to hold on to life to be born
              2) The vast majority of these cases are unknown to the mother
              3) Therefore, a vast number of lives / potential lives are lost during pregnancy
              4) God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient
              5) God could do something about this but chooses not to – God lets unborns die by the millions
              6) Suffering and evil is explained by theodicy that usually revolves around the idea that these things happen for a reason
              6) How could something which involves the suffering and death of people whom we don’t even know exist have any viable reason?

              You have failed to provide any viable reason. Moreover, you claim this is not within the framework of Christianity. This is nonsense that seems nothing more than a cop out when in a difficult dilemma. This is life (and death). This happens on this earth. If Christianity is true, then this is very much something that needs answering by those channels.

            • JohnM

              7) 100% of all humans, die.
              8) There’s plenty of meaningless suffering in this world..
              9) I don’t see why that would be inconsistent with the existence of my God, that we read about in the bible.

              You see.. I’m not dedicated to the tradition of denying the existence of Satan. I don’t care, that some high-ranking clergy-men in the church, 1200 years after Christ, said some that became a tradition in the broad church, and therefore people expect me to defend. I don’t care what dogmas the Catholic Church insist on defending. I just don’t care. If it’s not in tune with scripture, I will expose the flaws and shame it myself. Which I have done on many occasions, and is happy to do again.

              So look.. I’m not going to sit here, and lie to you. There are a lot of meaningless suffering in the world. That’s just a fact of life. There are plenty of injustices. That’s just a fact of life. There is meaning less death. That’s just a fact of life. Some people see nothing more than hate, abuse, rape, and then they die. That’s the world that we live in.

              On the other hand, that’s exactly what I would expect, based on what I read in the bible. We do live in a fallen world. And unlike a lot of people, I don’t deny the existence of Satan, the opposer of God, the “god” of this world, as the bible calls him.

              So unlike them, I don’t have come up with all sorts of flawed explanations, such as saying: “well there’s a good and just reason for your death and suffering”. In fact, I say the opposite… There shouldn’t be injustice in this world. There’ shouldn’t be death among us..

              How can I say that? I can say that, because it matches what we read in the bible. We don’t live in the world as God made it. We live in a fallen world. Death, sin and suffering wasn’t part of creation. It’s unnatural. It doesn’t belong here. And I see no reason, to go against what we read in the bible, and try to explain it as being part of good Gods creation from the outset.

              Like I said earlier, I both have good God and evil god, as Stephen Law likes to call it. I don’t have any problem explaining evil. Good God, explains good. Evil god, explains evil. It’s as simple as that, if one takes a biblical standpoint, and leave tradition out of it.

              But if you want to talk about tradition… Then Omnipotence has always, as far as I understand, been understood as that which is logically possible. For example, making a round square, would not count against the Omnipotence of God, given that it is logically impossible to make a round square.

              Now, in my previous posts, I have laid out what I see as the framework of Christianity, that we find in the bible. “No forgiveness without bloodshed“ and so on. I’ve tried to explain why death and sin is a very serious issue, that God has to deal with in a serious way. In a sense, I’ve been saying: “It’s impossible to snap ones fingers, and make sin/death go away, just like that, within the framework of Christianity”. I’ve also explained to you, what God has already done. And how close we now are, to sin and death being a thing of the past.

              Yet you keep calling on God to do “something” about death, as if he hadn’t done anything. So what is it? What is this “something”, that you deem to be possible within the framework of Christianity, that you seem to think that God isn’t doing?

      • Did you even read the text? He didn’t say 60-75% of the ones with a positive test, but 60-75% of the fertilized eggs. Most of these, as mentioned in the text, fail without anyone even noticing, because the eggs fail to to implant. This means the fertilized eggs would never reach a stage where they would cause a positive test. 
        It is however debatable whether such an egg should even be considered a pregnancy, but since we’re discussing the christian approach, any fertilized egg should count as life, so the argument seems valid to me.

    • Unfortunately the rest of this thread did not copy over from the old Skeptic Blogs site. I wonder what I said?!

      • Oh, JohnM! Your comments on fertilisation and pregnancy are so embarrassing! Stop! The anti-abortion folk are at least right that from conception, an embryo does meet the criteria for being called life, though it entails no concept of a soul. To say it’s a *potential* human (referring to consciousness and so on) is true, but doesn’t change the fact that it is a living thing and contains a full set of human DNA. The question is, is it wrong for that little collection of cells to be prevented from running its course to become a fully formed human? As has been said, it is indeed the case that a very large proportion of pregnancies, especially first pregnancies, end in spontaneous abortion, often before the woman could ever even know she was pregnant. These are referred to as “chemical pregnancies”. Home pregnancy tests will not be able to detect a pregnancy until the woman’s period is almost due, almost 2 weeks after ovulation. It is very difficult, then, to estimate how many of these there are, and even after reaching the stage of testing positive, there are many pregnancies which fail in these very early stages. The figures in the post are reflective of current estimates, and the question posed by ATP is perfectly valid.
        As for appealing to Satan to explain everything bad in the world, don’t forget that Christianity maintains that God is still in control, and that Satan can do nothing without God allowing it. Remember, for example, the introduction to the book of Job, where Satan must ask permission from God to do things, and God sets limits on what he can do. So the question of God allowing these things is not in the least diminished by a belief in Satan.
        I’d like to add more to the case that God does not seem bothered about protecting unborn babies. Reasonably Faithless recently posted (http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless/2012/10/07/unforgivable-inerrancy/) about the genocide in the Old Testament. The Christian who believes the Bible believes in a God who commands and approves of the systematic slaughter of whole cities, including infants and pregnant women, on many occasions in the Old Testament. This considerably undermines the claim that life is sacred from conception and God is concerned with preserving it. In his defence of these genocides, William Lane Craig actually argues that the children were better off dead because that way they would go to heaven, whereas if they had been raised in their culture, they would have gone to hell (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites). Craig does not know that children who die go to heaven, and since the Bible teaches that we are born in sin, all deserve God’s judgement and are only saved through faith in Jesus, it would seem more logical to conclude that they go to hell. But if Craig is right, then we should kill every child so that they never grow old enough to choose not to be a Christian. It would be a dreadful act to allow a child to become old enough that they might end up going to hell. Abortion and infanticide become the only moral response to human life.

    • And to say that miscarriages are the woman’s fault, due to STDs, drunkenness, smoking and previous abortions is both profoundly ignorant and profoundly offensive.

    • Pingback: Apologist JW Wartick shies away from answering abortion question | A Tippling Philosopher()

    • Scott McMann

      So, I’m just trying to make sense of JohnM’s response… God can’t snap his fingers and make death and sin just go away because it is an integral part of the world and because of Mankind’s desire to sin? So you are saying God has rules and must obey them, right? But if that is true, then why is abortion murder and thus a sin, but he allows all of those 60-75% to be destroyed naturally, without any outside influence or knowledge of the Mother/Father. So it is either part of his system and apparently he can break his own rules or Satan is the cause and is getting a “Free soul supply” for Hell? In which case, wouldn’t god being just help these innocent souls, or are we all born into sin like the bible says and so they go to hell? Or does God just let them into Heaven by default, in which case when does this safe period end? Birth? Early Childhood? When a kid first does something bad?

    • Marie Hurley

      You are funny. It’s called sin. We all have to die someday. Some as fertilzed eggs, a 3 year old with cancer, a 22 year old with a heart attack , a 50 year old with lung failure…….life is unfair and it’s our fault not God’s. As a non Christian there is no way you would ever understand. God is omnipotent and does not live in our space and time. What he allows is for our fallen nature to go the course until he comes again to restore us to what he originally perfectly created.

      • Andy_Schueler

        We all have to die someday. Some as fertilzed eggs….. and it’s our fault

        Fundies say the darndest things!

      • I don’t think that fulfils any definition of the term ‘funny’.

        I was wondering how a 3 year old can take on the punishment of people thousands of years before them.

        You see, the Fall is a ridiculous concept:

        1) If Adam and Eve are representative of humanity wrt testing us, and they failed, then humanity would doubtless fail. Thus the problem is in the design of humanity. If I designed a car that broke own every time it was tested, and I tested it and the test version broke down, but I still released the model into the world knowing the failure of the test, then, I am afraid, the moral culpability remains with me. I designed and built it, and knew it would fail.

        2) If A and E are not representative of humanity, then it is not fair for God to test them and transfer the punishment for their failure onto humanity from that moment forward. They are not representative.

        This is a two-pronged dilemma which you cannot coherently answer. But good luck anyway.

        You see, you appear to be funny. By that I mean we often actually laugh at the logic used in such rubbish arguments.

        That said, please give it all you’ve got and see if your position stumps us in anything more than intellectual incredulity.

        • Marie Hurley

          You are ignorant. That’s better. You can’t even use your entire brain yet you understand all that is in the universe.

          • Marie Hurley

            There was no test. We gave free will to destroy ourselves. Yes our fault. Oh well I do not argue with close minded people. Buh bye.

            • “We gave free will to destroy ourselves.” – doesn’t even make sense.

              You always know when you meet someone who does not have sufficient answers because they declare things like “You are ignorant…You can’t even use your entire brain” but don’t show how the person is ignorant or even provide counterpoints to arguments.

              Look, I am a philosopher of religion. This is my bread and butter. I invite you to a cordial discussion on this topic. Don’t fly-post and refuse to back up your assertion.s If you properly have an enquiring mind, let’s debate.

              If you think that the free will theodicy does the job for your belief system, then let’s go to town on it.

              So, if it was not a test, then the punishment was meted out in exactly the same way. In other words, the points I made remain a thorn in your side.

              Either this is a punishment because A and E are representative of humanity, and so humanity is being collectively punished for the representative actions of A and E – in which case we have a design fault for humanity.

              Or they are not representative and we are being unfairly punished for the actions of non-representative human samples, and thus the punishment is unfair.

              For example:

              I could punish you family, your children, your parents, with imprisoning them in your country because I know some criminals who were horrible and evil and stole, murdered and raped.

              You would rightly say “that is horrible, my family did nothing of the sort!” in which case you would be right. It was underserved, and those horrible people that did those bad things were not representative of you and your family. Indeed, that is how society works, and you would agree to that. We do not punish people on account of the actions of non-representative others.

              But if EVERYONE murdered and raped, then there is something wrong with the design of EVERYONE. Since we do not have a and in our design, that culpability rests with the designer.

              So far, you have provided the square root of naff all to contradict these points.

            • Marie Hurley

              Are we not all ignorant. As far as I am concerned yes. Do you know how the universe was created?Many theories and scientific facts state that it could not have been created from nothing. I can go on for days about you think science proves this and I think religious beliefs proves that but all in all no one can prove one definitive answer. I do not waste time trying to figure out if God exists or does not because it is futile.
              And as far as humanity failing, how are you so sure we will.
              A and e were not a test. But the reason why they failed you do not accept. Your auto design was fully meant to be a flawless running piece of equipment because you designed it that way. And when it failed to run flawlessly you are the reason. GOD created a and e perfectly but by their own free will they chose to disobey. An auto does not have a choice to obey or not it is dependent on its designers engineering.
              So if we can choose to disobey we can choose to obey. God gave Adam a gift he did not earn, Adam lost it, and so his descendants did not inherit it. But God is still fair to us because he offers us not just the exalted state in which Adam was created, but a much higher state of union with him through Christ. I guess he wants us to earn salvation, perfection, whatever you want to call it. Because giving it to us just doesn’t work. Hmm I guess that’s just not knowing the mind of God huh.

            • Bair

              Brainless zygotes have free will?

    • Pingback: Dawkins, Abortion and Catholic Fervour | A Tippling Philosopher()

    • Pingback: God Loves Infant Death - How Most Souls in Heaven are Automatons • A Tippling Philosopher()