For what purpose does God cause little children to die of cancer?
How can an all powerful God deny responsibility for what occurs in it's creation?
OK, john. Let's answer the second comment first and take an analogy. Peter Heinlein is thought to have created the first watch. Over the intervening centuries, watches have been used in a number of events that have resulted in the death of men, women and children. Are we to understand - as your post suggests - that Herr Heinlein has to bear the responsibility for these, as it is his creation that has been used?
As for your first comment, illness and potential for death is part and parcel of the process of a dynamic natural world. Just think of the global population that we'd have if people didn't die. Why is the death of a child particularly worse than that of an adult? After all, no-one has a purpose in living.
If I had the power to cure cancer but didn't because I thought people should discover their own cure, could I claim that subsequent deaths from cancer were not my fault?
Right, until 20 or 30 years ago, cancers were often associated with smoking cigarettes; it is now been associated with obesity; are either of these, things that humanity
have to do/be?
That books tells us that Christ (god) can cure illness even bring back the dead.
Do you have any evidence that cures from illness are purely down to medical science?
So why does that little child die.
If a human parent follows a life-style that causes their off-spring to suffer from some illness or untreatable condition (as medical science indicates can happen) where does the responsibility lie?
Anyone would think that failure to save that child is ample evidence for the non existence of God or maybe just evidence that he is a merciless, uncaring shit.
Anyone who takes this highly unscientific understanding seriously would appear, to me, to be pretty careless. Oddly enough, your 'ample evidence for the non existence of God' is equally balanced by the 'ample evidence for the existence of God', especially when people recover from 'untreatable' conditions which have been deemed terminal by mediacl science.
I just CANNOT understand why any intelligent person can persist in a God belief in the face of all we now know.
john, what would that 'all we now know' be? That medical science doesn't have all the answers, that human nature in the 21st century is very little different to human nature 2/3/5/10,000 years ago? That humans today can be as cruel to other humans as they were X000 years ago - or conversely, as caring towards other humans as they were X000 years ago. That 21st century CE Western society condones slavery as much as 17th century CE, 1st century CE, 1st century BCE, 10th century BCE, etc societies, and that potentially there is a much now as at any time in the past?
If one compares 21st century 'developed world' society with 21st century 'developing world' society, whilst this, that and the other aspect of the former is almost certainly better than their equivalent in the latter, there are as many aspects where the reverse is the case.
