When presented with the information that unborn and new-born babies die of natural causes countless times every day, one is forced to consider the implications this has on their beliefs of a ruler of the universe. Since an unborn, or new-born baby is innocent in every way, how can it's untimely death contribute to the supposed planned system? Rationally one is forced to choose one of the following hypothetical situations.
1.) There is no God, supreme being, or morally imposing cosmic system in the universe.
2.)God is not good or just.
3.)God is not all powerful, or does not control nature.
4.)God has abandoned his creations.
Some points to consider before responding:
Are all lives equal? If so, can ending one life short of practically existing at all, have a beneficial, or more importantly, just impact on another life? wouldn't that be squandering one equal life only to effect another supposed equal life? Whether or not the death of these babies can be considered a punishment or not, is it just? can it have a righteous purpose? Can it's clear opposition to equality be just?
If you can think of another hypothesis that would be consistent with the facts please share.
I see what you're saying, I made this post to oppose the most prevalent religions, hence the anthropomorphic assumption. It's hard for a theist to think of a reason for a baby to die, in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. I myself understand that life can be lost at any point because living things are nothing more than organic machines.
A good example/proof of this is death and birth in stars. Totally random chance is correct. It's a total random chance that our planet is just the right distance from the sun. Good point of view Doone.
I think this part in particular is really well said, "It is not evil but simply due to random chance - DNA, place of birth, historical conditions etc."
A good reference to support all three parts of your argument (2; 3; and 1 by way of 2 & 3), if you haven't read it already, is "Evil and Omnipotence" by J.L. Mackie. It argues the nature (and, consequently, the existence) of God from the problem of the existence of Evil.
To sum up his arguments, the three facets of the situation (God is wholly good; God is omnipotent; Evil exists) cannot coexist. Any two of the factors can coexist, but not the third. In short: if God is wholly good (insofar as wholly good things must defeat evil to their greatest extent) and God is omnipotent (having the power to carry out his nature as being wholly good), then evil cannot exist; if God is wholly good and evil exists, God is not omnipotent; finally, if God is omnipotent and evil exists, God is not wholly good.
I wrote an essay response to it for a philosophy class this semester, actually. To summarize, I argued further that since it can be easily demonstrated that God is not who his followers or holy books say he is, the source of his commonly-attributed traits essentially must be lying or mistaken. I further pushed the issue by arguing that if everything we know about God is demonstrably wrong, then it's possible (or even likely) that those who originally wrote of his existence, taught about him and spread the religion are also wrong. With that, there is nothing solid upon which to base belief in his existence. Thusly, why believe at all?