You realize that this is the precise argument of the anti-natalism movement, right?
Well, then, you’re gonna find yourself impaled on the other horn of this dilemma: you’re saying that God would cause a mother and a father – who are attempting to create a human child – to instead be the parents of a non-human animal. In other words, your thought experiment requires God to be not-God. So, with that paradox, the thought experiment fails.
I have another question. It’s a ‘flip’ of the OP:
Would it be possible for two “zombies” to conceive a child with a human soul?
It would be human, just not a person.
That would be entirely up to God, and we all know he can do it.
How did I cast a pall of ill-will?
Your “worst case” version of events is rotting in the worm-eaten ground. But the worst-case scenario under Catholicism is exactly the same, plus the minor detail of infinite & eternal suffering.
Parents can weight the probabilities of a happy fulfilling life vs a miserable one and decide whether or not to have a child accordingly. God doesn’t have to weigh anything; he knows what will happen and is fully capable of acting to prevent the “infinite & eternal suffering” part.
EXACTLY - Far better to get to know for instance the GOSPEL.
Then to exhaust so much energy in an attempt to deny what one does NOT believe in…
Even to the point of manufacturing so-called ‘proofs’ which cannot even be demoed.
I’d give you that it’d be a hominin. However, “human” seems to imply “person”. Nevertheless, without rationality, it’d be “animal”, not “human”.
That was kinda my toungue-in-cheek point.
The poster expects God to use power in a way that violates freedom, in an effort to prevent suffering, but doesn’t realize that his/her own parents could be held to the same scrutiny.
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between power and love.
Because you expect people with power to use it in an abusive way that limits freedom in an attempt to prevent suffering, all in the name of “love”.
Your parents are therefore not acting in good will when they have you, because they had the power to prevent your suffering, yet they:
1 gave birth to you knowing you will suffer and die
2 allowed you out of the house where you could catch germs and possibly get punched in the face or get hit by a car, or just make simple mistakes, and suffer.
So by your own insistence, your parents cannot be loving.
Your worldview has a glaring issue.
Or maybe God can be love even while suffering exists.
Which is it?
But as I said:
The problem with the hell-bound soul is not “he will suffer at all” it is “he will suffer infinitely & eternally”.
Think about what you just said…
as you contemplate your own parents weighing the certainty that you will at least die, and possibly go to hell. And still they give birth to you. Hold them to the same standards as you are holding God.
(I’m surprised hell even concerns you as an atheist!!)
The atheist account doesn’t need to consider this. The Catholic account does. As I said:
Ummm, did you just dodge the main point?
Why do you avoid the glaring problem you have, the misunderstanding of power in relation to love?
So I said
And you responded with your diversion about atheist parents which mentioned neither free will nor power.
Which I responded to by saying that atheist parents don’t actually have to weigh their decision against infinite & eternal suffering, so its not a sensible objection to judging God for failing to prevent infinite & eternal suffering. But now you say:
I’m saying you haven’t actually made a relevant point. It may be the case that Catholic parents should avoid having kids because of hell, but that’s not a problem for my position.
Precisely… . Beasts…
Children of God possess similarities with all LIFE… Chimps, Yeast even Plants.
We’ve the potential to Grow Spectacularly almost w/o limit as individuals throughout Life
and civilizations throughout History - And they can not.
If it walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. More than likely it is a duck. If it looks human it is human.
Does form follow function in this discussion?
We’re drawing distinctions without differences here. It’d be whatever you get when you have a human body without a soul. You’re calling it an animal is simply an appeal to emotion, not a substantive objection.
No parents ever ensoul their own child; God does. God is free to abstain. There is no “law of nature” which binds God to always ensoul a human body.
No one wills themselves or their soul into existence.
Only if one avoids the substance contained in the word animal.
There are distinct differences between animals and humans.