Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[mgb]

You have not show me that science is not the only way to knowledge. Science is knowledge that can be known from observation and experience. You have not shown that any knowledge can be had that is divorced from observation or experience.

I have not said there is knowledge divorced from experience. I gave you that image of someone jumping out of a plane. That is experience and knowledge that cannot be arrived at by science; one has to experience it to know it. Eating a piece of fruit is direct knowledge. There is carnal knowledge. An artist knows the world throught art. Likewise with writers, musicians. There is mysticism. There are many ways to know reality.You need to post a link to support your claim.

But there is no other rational conclusion to be had concerning that mind arises from brain.

The arguments for non material mind are rational. The Fine Tuning Argument is a rational argument for the existence of God.

They have demonstrated how everything can evolve from the natural properties of the constituents of this universe without any outside intervention. Apparently you need to be in denial of this in order to continue your argument.

They have not. They have a hypothesis that is woefully incomplete and rife with technical problems on all fronts.

Sure, scientists still have a lot of details to work out, but that hardly supports the need for a magical intervening God who has to reach into the universe in order to push things around to violate the natural laws of physics.

God does not have to violate any laws. Mind over matter for God would be perfectly in tune with God's nature.

Now you are arguing that it's not and that some supernatural God needs to consciously reach into the universe and push things around

I am not. I am saying that mind is part of the whole system of things.

But let's face the truth here. Even those religiously-biased scientists aren't able to convince the scientific community as a whole.

Did you read the article? The objections are scientific, backed up with perfectly rational arguments. In trying to blame it on religion you are avoiding the scientific arguments.

It's not beset with technical problems. There are simply many minute details that have not yet been fully explain.

They are not 'minute' details. They are fundamental problems with the theory.

. The God would instantly need to be less than omnipotent or omniscient since he would have designed a universe that cannot do on its own what he originally wanted it to do so that he would then later need to fight against his own universe by intervening manually in the process at extreme molecular levels.

That is not my argument. My argument is that mind is part of the whole system.

you'd need to have a creator who was incapable of creating a universe that can automatically do what he wanted

Why does it have to be 'automatic'? The system is a dynamic relationship between mind and matter.

you're then instantly stuck with a God who either makes a lot of mistakes, or does bad things on purpose and is therefore malicious in his designs. Every genetic defect would then be this God's personal doing.

The physical universe is not perfect. Matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, is too crude to manifest perfection. Perfection is of the mind and spirit. Besides, evil has invaded the biological world, just as it has invaded everything else. God does not create cruelty in nature. As Hiledgard said, the natural world is fallen too. As for the picture you posted of the siamese twins - that is a result of the loss of perfection and the descent of spirit into matter.

[Divine Insight]

You have not show me that science is not the only way to knowledge. Science is knowledge that can be known from observation and experience. You have not shown that any knowledge can be had that is divorced from observation or experience.

I have not said there is knowledge divorced from experience. I gave you that image of someone jumping out of a plane. That is experience and knowledge that cannot be arrived at by science; one has to experience it to know it. Eating a piece of fruit is direct knowledge. There is carnal knowledge. An artist knows the world throught art. Likewise with writers, musicians. There is mysticism. There are many ways to know reality.You need to post a link to support your claim.

So why then would you claim that any of that knowledge is beyond the reach of science?

But there is no other rational conclusion to be had concerning that mind arises from brain.

The arguments for non material mind are rational. The Fine Tuning Argument is a rational argument for the existence of God.

No it's not. Not only this but your arguments are self-contradictory anyway. In one breath you want to claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and then in the next breath you want to argue that life cannot evolve in the universe without intervention by a designing God.

You aren't even being consistent in your arguments.

They have demonstrated how everything can evolve from the natural properties of the constituents of this universe without any outside intervention. Apparently you need to be in denial of this in order to continue your argument.

They have not. They have a hypothesis that is woefully incomplete and rife with technical problems on all fronts.

Creationist's hogwash. These accusations simply aren't true.

Sure, scientists still have a lot of details to work out, but that hardly supports the need for a magical intervening God who has to reach into the universe in order to push things around to violate the natural laws of physics.

God does not have to violate any laws. Mind over matter for God would be perfectly in tune with God's nature.

A "finely tuned" universe wouldn't need a God intervening in it manually.

Make up your mind. Do you want to argue for a finely tuned universe, or a badly tuned universe that requires external intervention?

I realize that theists are used to having their cake and eating it too in their apologetic nonsense, but that's not going to work here.

Now you are arguing that it's not and that some supernatural God needs to consciously reach into the universe and push things around

I am not. I am saying that mind is part of the whole system of things.

In that case you are arguing for pantheism, not Hebrew mythology with a separate Zeus-like egotistical God who "intervenes" to purposefully design things.

But let's face the truth here. Even those religiously-biased scientists aren't able to convince the scientific community as a whole.

Did you read the article? The objections are scientific, backed up with perfectly rational arguments. In trying to blame it on religion you are avoiding the scientific arguments.

There are no good scientific arguments that the scientific method can't ultimately answer all these questions. It's not like scientists are at the end of the rope tossing up their hands proclaiming they have exhausted all possible explanations.

I don't care who wrote the article. Until the scientific community as a whole starts claiming that they are at a DEAD END, all of these concerns are nothing short of nonsense.

It's not beset with technical problems. There are simply many minute details that have not yet been fully explain.

They are not 'minute' details. They are fundamental problems with the theory.

Which theories? Certainly not the overall theory of evolution. Refining the individual theories of precisely how every step takes place is what science is all about. If all theories were completed science would be a finished field of research. No one is claiming that science is anywhere near finished explaining everything.

Again, these kind of complaints are either theistic "God of the Gaps" arguments, or they are simply scientists conveying to other scientists where more work needs to be done. That's all.

And again, this doesn't help your theistic arguments anyway. In one breath you want to claim "fine-tuning" as evidence for a supernatural God. and in the next breath you want to claim a need for intervention because the universe is NOT finely tuned.

Better make up your mind which position you want to argue for. Trying to argue for both of these simultaneously is an oxymoron.

. The God would instantly need to be less than omnipotent or omniscient since he would have designed a universe that cannot do on its own what he originally wanted it to do so that he would then later need to fight against his own universe by intervening manually in the process at extreme molecular levels.

That is not my argument. My argument is that mind is part of the whole system.

Then are you rejecting Chrsitianity and it's jealous authoritarian intervening God?

You appear to be trying to argue for some form of pantheism now.

you'd need to have a creator who was incapable of creating a universe that can automatically do what he wanted

Why does it have to be 'automatic'? The system is a dynamic relationship between mind and matter.

What happened to an authoritarian designing God?

Have you abandoned Christianity and moved over to a form of Eastern Mysticism?

you're then instantly stuck with a God who either makes a lot of mistakes, or does bad things on purpose and is therefore malicious in his designs. Every genetic defect would then be this God's personal doing.

The physical universe is not perfect.

Then why claim that it might have been created by a supposedly "perfect non-material mind"? Where's the justification for that?

Matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, is too crude to manifest perfection. Perfection is of the mind and spirit.

So, if there truly is a non-material mind that wanted to create a physical world, why restrict the physical world to only 4 dimensions? Your arguments aren't making any sense. The choice to limit things to only 4 dimensions would need to have been made by your imagined "perfect mind and spirit".

It's just a nonsensical argument.

Besides, evil has invaded the biological world, just as it has invaded everything else.

And now how utterly ridiculous is this?

You are trying to claim that all of reality was created by a "perfect mind and spirit", but has since been "invaded" by "evil minds and spirits".

Just how ridiculous does this theological argument need to get?

God does not create cruelty in nature. As Hiledgard said, the natural world is fallen too. As for the picture you posted of the siamese twins - that is a result of the loss of perfection and the descent of spirit into matter.

Your theological views have been reduced from a need to have a "perfect non-material mind" nothing more than endless excuses for why the world isn't anywhere near "perfect".

Let's face it mgb. You don't have a coherent philosophy to offer.

Your imaginary "perfect non-material mind" would need to also be the source of "evil". And this is true even if you claim that 'evil' is a result of a poorly designed and constructed physical world. Who's fault would that be? It could only be the fault of the "perfect non-material mind" that you claim is responsible for having created it in the first place.

It becomes and argument of "Endless Apologetics" for why the proposed "perfect non-material mind" was unable to create a perfect material world.

In the end your "perfect non-material mind" must necessarily be limited, inept, or outright malicious. There's just no getting around that one.

Unless you want to claim that there are TWO non-material minds. One benevolent, and the other malevolent, who have come together to play a game of war in creating a physical world where they battle with each other to see who's character can ultimately win.

But this then requires polytheism where two Gods are at war with each other and their battlefield is a make-pretend physical world where they each remotely control physical brains in an effort to undermine the other's purpose.

And you think this makes more sense then science?

Like you say, "To each their own".

You are certainly free to embrace whatever philosophies and worldview you want.

But when it comes to arguments to support them, I don't see where you have anything compelling to offer.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 109 by mgb]

That is experience and knowledge that cannot be arrived at by science; one has to experience it to know it. Eating a piece of fruit is direct knowledge. There is carnal knowledge. An artist knows the world throught art. Likewise with writers, musicians. There is mysticism. There are many ways to know reality.

That is all just rhetoric. Experiences don't necessarily conform to reality. An amputee knows that his limb is missing but he may still experience its presence and even pain in it. What does an artist know about the world through art? What criteria do you apply to distinguish between what is real and what stems from the imagination?

The arguments for non material mind are rational. The Fine Tuning Argument is a rational argument for the existence of God.

And there are valid counter arguments. None of it is evidence for the actual existence of any gods.

They have not. They have a hypothesis that is woefully incomplete and rife with technical problems on all fronts.

The theory of evolution is more than just an hypothesis. It is an explanation of the wealth of data and observations concerning life on the earth. It has grown from strength to strength since the days of Darwin and Wallace and has not been refuted in any way. The magical alternative proposed by Christians has absolutely nothing to support it and is firmly rooted in wishful thinking and denial of scientific evidence.

God does not have to violate any laws. Mind over matter for God would be perfectly in tune with God's nature.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Invent a God that can do anything and you have an answer to everything without actually demonstrating that any of it is true.

The physical universe is not perfect. Matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, is too crude to manifest perfection.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence. What would a perfect universe look like? Perfection is a matter of opinion more than anything else. Please explain the meaning of matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, being too crude to manifest perfection. This sounds just like more rhetoric that is not based on anything real or meaningful.

[Divine Insight]

The physical universe is not perfect. Matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, is too crude to manifest perfection.

Again, assumes facts not in evidence. What would a perfect universe look like? Perfection is a matter of opinion more than anything else. Please explain the meaning of matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, being too crude to manifest perfection. This sounds just like more rhetoric that is not based on anything real or meaningful.

Exactly. And now we need to start making up theological apologies for why this imagined perfect non-material mind would be restrained to only 4 dimensions?

It just snowballs into a never-ending need for theological apologies for why this imagined non-material mind is necessarily so inept.

In mgb's last post he even had to introduce "evil" invading this non-material mind's physical manifestation. But evil itself would need to be a non-material mind in this theological scenario. After all it certainly couldn't be a mind that arose from the physical world because that's what mgb is arguing against.

[mgb]

So why then would you claim that any of that knowledge is beyond the reach of science?

I didn't claim that. I am saying that these things are presently outside the realm of science.

No it's not. Not only this but your arguments are self-contradictory anyway. In one breath you want to claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and then in the next breath you want to argue that life cannot evolve in the universe without intervention by a designing God.

Fine Tuning sets up the initial balance of things and mind evolves life from there.

A "finely tuned" universe wouldn't need a God intervening in it manually.

Fine Tuned means that the creative potential of matter is optimised. But mind is also required to evolve things to a higher level. Without fine tuning mind would have very poor conditions to moderate.

I don't care who wrote the article. Until the scientific community as a whole starts claiming that they are at a DEAD END, all of these concerns are nothing short of nonsense.

Rhetoric. The objections are scientific and fundamental. There are deep problmes with ToE. Have you not read the article? These are very serious objections.

But evil itself would need to be a non-material mind in this theological scenario. After all it certainly couldn't be a mind that arose from the physical world because that's what mgb is arguing against.

Yes, evil minds are non material. The traditional world is 'spirit'.

Certainly not the overall theory of evolution. Refining the individual theories of precisely how every step takes place is what science is all about. If all theories were completed science would be a finished field of research. No one is claiming that science is anywhere near finished explaining everything.

The basic idea of evolution is correct but the theory is beset with serious problems. It certainly has not 'explained everything' as you assert.

So, if there truly is a non-material mind that wanted to create a physical world, why restrict the physical world to only 4 dimensions? Your arguments aren't making any sense. The choice to limit things to only 4 dimensions would need to have been made by your imagined "perfect mind and spirit".

The world is imperfect because of evil. The universe was not made to be eternal, it is made for fallen creation and for redemption.

Your imaginary "perfect non-material mind" would need to also be the source of "evil".

God is not responsible for evil. Freedom is part of creation. Creation needs to be free and wise.

What does an artist know about the world through art?

The order of the mind and the world. Beauty is truth.

Please explain the meaning of matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, being too crude to manifest perfection. This sounds just like more rhetoric that is not based on anything real or meaningful.

Only what is perfect can be eternal. Evil destroys itself.

[Divine Insight]

There are deep problmes with ToE.

Or so Creationists wish.

God is not responsible for evil. Freedom is part of creation. Creation needs to be free and wise.

So are you saying that having free will is the source of evil?

If so, then the next question is, "Does your God have Free Will?"

If the answer is yes, then by your own decree, your God must be the source of evil.

And if he doesn't, then why call him "God"?

This is yet another example of theological apologetics nonsense.

What does an artist know about the world through art?

The order of the mind and the world. Beauty is truth.

Poetic nonsense.

Please explain the meaning of matter, squeezed into 4 dimensions, being too crude to manifest perfection. This sounds just like more rhetoric that is not based on anything real or meaningful.

Only what is perfect can be eternal. Evil destroys itself.

And from whence did evil come?

You haven't convincingly apologized for evil yet.

If your God's "Mind" is all that exists, then evil had to have come from your God's own mind.

There is no getting around this.

Your theology fails miserably.

Your theology cannot explain the existence of "evil".

Secular materialism explains it perfectly. "Evil" is nothing more than human's subjective disapproval of various things. Period. That's all it is. There is no such thing as any actual "evil" in secular materialism. All that exists is human disapproval.

But in your theology Evil must exist, and it cannot have come from your Perfect God. Therefore you need to have a totally independent source of Evil that you can pin blame on to exonerate your supposedly "Perfect God".

And the culprit you have chosen is "Free Will". But that clearly cannot work. You God cannot then have "Free Will" lest it too becomes evil. So this theology fails miserably. It's a broken theology that is without excuse.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 114 by Divine Insight]


'Good' and 'evil' define each other as do left and right. One does not exist without the other.

God did create a world with no evil which still exists today, for Jellyfish, and hence no 'good' exists for them either

would you trade places?

Then you understand for yourself, in principle at least, the meaning and value of 'good' and the necessity of evil to define it, to give it meaning.

secularism has a difficult time accounting for this

Because a meaningless existence does not desire or require meaning.. it has to blunder through an incredible number of compounded astronomical improbabilities to achieve this- in just one single case in the entire universe that we are aware of.

Not technically impossible perhaps, but there are less improbable explanations that do not rely so heavily on chance to achieve the same result

[Divine Insight]

'Good' and 'evil' define each other as do left and right. One does not exist without the other.

In that case a "Good" God is necessarily the embodiment of "evil".

You can't have your theological cake and eat it too.

God did create a world with no evil which still exists today, for Jellyfish, and hence no 'good' exists for them either

Who are you to say whether "good" or "bad" exists for jellyfish?

would you trade places?

Did you? And if not, then who are you to speak for the jellyfish?

Then you understand for yourself, in principle at least, the meaning and value of 'good' and the necessity of evil to define it, to give it meaning.

So? Where is there a problem in that?

secularism has a difficult time accounting for this

Are you kidding me? Secularism would have extreme problems trying to explain the existence of a world where nothing objectionable ever happened. Such a world would be far better off attributed to some "Perfect Creator". But that's clearly not the world we live in. We live in a world that is precisely what should be expected from pure random chance.

Because a meaningless existence does not desire or require meaning.. it has to blunder through an incredible number of compounded astronomical improbabilities to achieve this- in just one single case in the entire universe that we are aware of.

Not technically impossible perhaps, but there are less improbable explanations that do not rely so heavily on chance to achieve the same result

Well, if you want to speak about extremely improbable scenarios, how about the scenario where a supposedly "Perfect God" exists. How improbable is that? And if you can't put a number on it, then what makes you think you could put a number on the probability of an imperfect world existing?

Probabilities are meaningless when you have nothing for comparison.

What's the probability of a "Perfect God" creating an "Imperfect World"? I would say that it's necessarily ZERO. How could a perfect God create anything less than perfection?

It would either need to be limited or inept in it's supposed "perfection" in which case it can't be said to be a perfect creator.

Or it would need to be purposefully malevolent to knowingly and willfully create imperfections. So how could it be said to be "perfect" is it's necessarily already malevolent?

And if you allow "malevolence" to be part of "perfection" then you have already brought into question the very meaning of "perfection" in the first place.

A random chance universe explains why things aren't perfect.

There is no excuse for why things are not perfect if we postulate that the world was created by a "Perfect Creator".

There's no room for imperfection in that model. And Free Will cannot be held hostage as the culprit for imperfections because if Free Will is to blame for imperfection, then the original God cannot be said to have had Free Will lest it would necessarily be imperfect.

So the whole theological scenario become a circular circus of endless apologetics for why it can't be made to work.

Secular materialism does not have this problem.

Secular materialism needs no apologetics. Evil is nothing more than a human concept basically defined by humans based on what humans subjectively disprove of. And individual humans can't even come to a consensus on precisely what should be disapproved of and what shouldn't be disapproved of.

There isn't even any such thing as "absolute objective evil". All that exists are human subjective opinions concerning things that individual humans dislike or disapprove of. That's all that exists.

When we see a large consensus among humans on some things like "It's evil for someone to kill my loved ones". It's only because we all tend to agree that we don't like it when someone kills our loved ones.

That's all. It's just a subjective consensus. Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you were to ask fish if they thought it was morally good to put sharp hooks on the end of a fishing line to snag them when they are trying to find something to eat, I'm pretty sure they would say that they think that is an extremely "Evil" thing to do. Yet how many fishermen think that going fishing is an evil thing to do?

If you were to ask White-Tail Deer if they think it's moral that humans should come into their habitat and shoot them with high-powered rifles for sport every year, I'm willing to bet the the Whit-Tail Deer would think that this is an extremely evil thing for humans to be doing to them. Yet, hunters don't think twice about being immoral when they go deer hunting.

So morality is not only a human invention, it's also a very human-centric concept.

In a secular materialistic world there is nothing left to explain. It's all explained by simply pointing out that the entire concept of "evil" is a human subjective opinion. Period.

Does this mean that human social groups should then abandoning this man-made subjective concept? No, of course not. It's a useful concept for an social species to adopt.

But secular materialism still explains it perfectly with nothing left unexplained.

Theology offers no explanation at all for why a perfect creator would have created evil humans. And as I already pointed out, the "Free Will Apology" fails miserably. Free Will cannot be the cause of evil.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 116 by Divine Insight]

In that case a "Good" God is necessarily the embodiment of "evil".

You can't have your theological cake and eat it too.

by that rational, any parent that lets a child grow up, leave the house, and take their own risks, learn their own lessons, learn the difference between good and evil for themselves, is evil...

we let them do so out of love, so too with God

Who are you to say whether "good" or "bad" exists for jellyfish?

it doesn't, they have no concept of good or bad..

Secularism would have extreme problems trying to explain the existence of a world where nothing objectionable ever happened

objectionable to whom? 'objectionable' assumes a sentient being who has that ability to find something objectionable.. or... pleasurable- that's what random chance has a hard time explaining

And if you allow "malevolence" to be part of "perfection" then you have already brought into question the very meaning of "perfection" in the first place.

what is your favorite movie? the closest thing you know to a perfect movie? does everything go right for everybody all the way through? of course not, so does that mean the movie must have accidentally created itself for no particular reason?

to sum all this up- it's not that s**t happens, it's that s**t matters .. to us- neither of us would trade with the Jellyfish, & we would not wish that oblivion on our own children,- we want to give them that gift of a meaningful life, out of love, so does God- it's only logical.

Similarly our own children may be frustrated, resentful even for a time, not understanding why we do not instantly grant their every wish that is in our power, we do that out of love- not evil!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 116 by Divine Insight]

In that case a "Good" God is necessarily the embodiment of "evil".

You can't have your theological cake and eat it too.

by that rational, any parent that lets a child grow up, leave the house, and take their own risks, learn their own lessons, learn the difference between good and evil for themselves, is evil...

we let them do so out of love, so too with God

False equivalency. Parents aren't responsible for having created the world in which their children live.

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live. It's not just the natural disasters, disease, and potential accidents that could happen, but there are many other factors as well. We actually live in societies that compete for everything.

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

So how can you compare parents with a creator God? There is no comparison.

Who are you to say whether "good" or "bad" exists for jellyfish?

it doesn't, they have no concept of good or bad..

Exactly. And why is that? Because humans invented the concept.

Although I'm not sure we can actually say that jellyfish don't have their own sense of comfort and discomfort. If they do, then this would be their judgment of what they consider to be "good" or "bad" even if they don't take the concept to the same level of abstraction that humans do.

Secularism would have extreme problems trying to explain the existence of a world where nothing objectionable ever happened

objectionable to whom? 'objectionable' assumes a sentient being who has that ability to find something objectionable.. or... pleasurable- that's what random chance has a hard time explaining.

Random chance doesn't need to explain it because human evolution didn't happen by random chance.

Not only this, but clearly many animals have experiences that they are not pleased with. So this is far from being unique to humans. Just because these animals can't voice their concerns in abstract languages doesn't mean that don't have these experiences.

And if you allow "malevolence" to be part of "perfection" then you have already brought into question the very meaning of "perfection" in the first place.

what is your favorite movie? the closest thing you know to a perfect movie? does everything go right for everybody all the way through? of course not, so does that mean the movie must have accidentally created itself for no particular reason?

This doesn't excuse a supposedly "Perfect God" for being malevolent.

to sum all this up- it's not that s**t happens, it's that s**t matters .. to us- neither of us would trade with the Jellyfish, & we would not wish that oblivion on our own children,- we want to give them that gift of a meaningful life, out of love, so does God- it's only logical.

If we want to give our children a meaningful life out of love then so should God. So then please explain why so many of "God's Children" are suffering horrendous lives?

Would you purposefully create a grossly debilitating genetic defect in your own baby?

If not, then how to you explain why a God would do this to babies?

Similarly our own children may be frustrated, resentful even for a time, not understanding why we do not instantly grant their every wish that is in our power, we do that out of love- not evil!

No, most parents to not refuse to grant their children their every wish because they love them. They refuse to grant them their every wish because they simply don't have the resources to grant them.

In fact, wealthy people grant their children far more of what their children want than poor people do simply because they can.

And let's not forget, you arguments are based on the premise that your God is just as helpless and inept as human parents.

As a human parent if your child was horribly injured in an accident, let's say they were even burned and grossly disfigured. If you could wave a magic wand and restore them to pristine health would you do it. I think any loving parent would.

Well, there you go. Your God has to have this ability yet refuses to use it to restore health and comfort to his children who have been seriously injured.

So your arguments that your God acts like "loving parents" is utter nonsense.