Yet another ID challenge.

[Box Whatbox]

I've just spent the afternoon with a relative who was introducing her 4-month-old son to our local section of the family.
The poor little blighter spent a lot of time pushing his hand into his mouth, screaming in pain.
Teething, it's called.
Who designed that?

[rookiebatman]

- suffering proves sin.

Also, this concept is very tantamount to victim-blaming, so not really a great selling point.

[Box Whatbox]

...

Why, in your belief system, does the suffering of the innocent suit God's purpose?

First prove that children are innocent,

Even men accused of mass murder are considered innocent unless proven guilty. And that is in our, very-much-less-than-perfect system of justice. So, I could respond with 'Prove that babies are anything other than innocent'. But I won't.
For a start it would be a bit too much like a reflexive knee-jerk tu quoque, which wouldn't get us anywhere. For another thing, I'm not interested in 'proof' here in this thread, I'm just wanting to discuss what people believe, on a particular point, not whether their belief is 'true'.. And for a third reason; I was asking Wootah for a description of his belief on the matter of intelligent/stupid design, with particular reference to the dental development of the infant human. He took up the challenge of defending ID from a specifically Christian view-point, which was perfectly in line with the OP. With his reference to the Fall, I assumed that he was approaching the problem of suffering from the pov of crime and punishment. Hence my mentioning 'innocent' babies. If I was wrong to assume this, I'm sure Wootah is well capable of correcting my error.

. If you, ttruscott, want to contribute your opinion of this particular piece of anatomical 'design', please feel free to say whether you think it was a good job well done. If so, why? If not, how do you suppose it happened? This is the topic; please try to stay with it..
Speaking personally, in my capacity as a loving brother, parent, grandparent, uncle and friend of many an infant, across three generations, ISTM that if a conscious being actually designed the process whereby humans get their teeth, that designer was either uncaring or incompetent. ..
(Or deliberately sadistic??? But I find this thought quite unbearable.)
Anyone who's ever cuddled a sobbing and howling child in the middle of the night is entitled, I think, to wonder if the allocation of teeth could have been better handled.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to rookiebatman]
There is such a long list of claims that need to be proven before you get to these sorts of fine points that it boggles the imagination.

[Volbrigade]

...

Why, in your belief system, does the suffering of the innocent suit God's purpose?

First prove that children are innocent,

Even men accused of mass murder are considered innocent unless proven guilty. And that is in our, very-much-less-than-perfect system of justice. So, I could respond with 'Prove that babies are anything other than innocent'. But I won't.
For a start it would be a bit too much like a reflexive knee-jerk tu quoque, which wouldn't get us anywhere. For another thing, I'm not interested in 'proof' here in this thread, I'm just wanting to discuss what people believe, on a particular point, not whether their belief is 'true'.. And for a third reason; I was asking Wootah for a description of his belief on the matter of intelligent/stupid design, with particular reference to the dental development of the infant human. He took up the challenge of defending ID from a specifically Christian view-point, which was perfectly in line with the OP. With his reference to the Fall, I assumed that he was approaching the problem of suffering from the pov of crime and punishment. Hence my mentioning 'innocent' babies. If I was wrong to assume this, I'm sure Wootah is well capable of correcting my error.

. If you, ttruscott, want to contribute your opinion of this particular piece of anatomical 'design', please feel free to say whether you think it was a good job well done. If so, why? If not, how do you suppose it happened? This is the topic; please try to stay with it..
Speaking personally, in my capacity as a loving brother, parent, grandparent, uncle and friend of many an infant, across three generations, ISTM that if a conscious being actually designed the process whereby humans get their teeth, that designer was either uncaring or incompetent. ..
(Or deliberately sadistic??? But I find this thought quite unbearable.)
Anyone who's ever cuddled a sobbing and howling child in the middle of the night is entitled, I think, to wonder if the allocation of teeth could have been better handled.

Forgive me if you responded to this, and I didn't see it. I wonder if you might be interested in doing so?:

I accept your objection to the existence of God, based on the fact that infants have the capacity for pain.

So do unborn babies, by the way -- who pitifully try to escape from the merciless forceps and chemical solutions that abort their short lives. I don't have to assume you're ardently anti-abortion, and commend you for your position.

Do you accept my objection to the idea that "once there was nothing, and then it exploded", creating a universe of order and apparent design, in which randomly-assembled microbes morphed into men over great goobly-gobs of time --

based on the love and compassion expressed by the baby's mother, and others in their presence, who would do whatever they could to alleviate the baby's pain?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 6 by Box Whatbox]
Pain does not prevent us from knowing God.

If anything it is often the only thing that gives people pause to remember they are not God.

I think many people are saved by pain and the awareness that it can bring that we need God.

[Box Whatbox]

[Replying to post 34 by Volbrigade]

I did respond, asking how it related to the OP. Explain?

[Box Whatbox]

[Replying to post 6 by Box Whatbox]
Pain does not prevent us from knowing God.

Neither does pleasure.

If anything it is often the only thing that gives people pause to remember they are not God.

I think many people are saved by pain and the awareness that it can bring that we need God.

Whatever the benefits of pain for the thinking adult, I am asking whether the 'design' of the infant mouth is in any way a good design . The child is very clearly suffering, for hours at a time, across several months. Her behaviour in the next stage, (the terrible two's) suggests that her brain was not, at that time, in a condition to learn philosophical wisdom through suffering.

[Maranatha]

Pain and eventual death is the lot of every human being. God's word says this came about as a result of sin. God's word says human beings have no excuse to not believe in God because of all creation. Going back in history as far back as possible we find the origin of the seven day week, 'in six days God created the Earth and rested the seventh day'. Theories about evolution are relatively new.

[Goat]

Pain and eventual death is the lot of every human being. God's word says this came about as a result of sin. God's word says human beings have no excuse to not believe in God because of all creation. Going back in history as far back as possible we find the origin of the seven day week, 'in six days God created the Earth and rested the seventh day'. Theories about evolution are relatively new.

And how do you know what 'God's word'i is?? Can you support that 'God's word' is actually from God, rather than musings about God by mortal man?

[Box Whatbox]

Pain and eventual death is the lot of every human being. God's word says this came about as a result of sin..

I draw your attention to the post immediately above yours.

Whatever the benefits of pain for the thinking adult, I am asking whether the 'design' of the infant mouth is in any way a good design . The child is very clearly suffering, for hours at a time, across several months. .

Do you offer this supposed Sin as a justification for the pain suffered by very young children, and therefore as a defence of 'intelligent design'? Really? It's an intelligent design because it makes the child suffer terribly, because, well, the child needs to suffer, or God needs the child to suffer, because, er, ...Sin. That's it?
Really?