If God exist then why people who didn't do any crime or Sin (particularly children or new born baby) are getting deadly disease? Because The pain they are getting is their own pain that God is not feeling instead of them.

  • See The Problem of Evil and Theodicy for reviews of philosophical attempts to answer this question. Jan 1, 2018 at 9:25
  • It's not possible to answer "why" about many things. Why did God let Abraham and Sarah grow so old (past the normal age of childbearing) when He had promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations? By all appearances, God was not being true to His word, but, even so, Abraham did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in his faith, giving glory to God. More important than the question "why" is the question as to whether you will trust God in His goodness in spite of how things appear.
    – user3017
    Jan 1, 2018 at 9:41

1 Answer 1


Your premise is that God is a good being. But already the bible shows us that if God exists then he is certainly not a good being in the sense of humans, but either indifferent or deliberately bad. (Thererfore it would be better if he does not exist.)

As already the bible shows us God cannot simultaneously be omniscient and infinitely merciful:

Tree of knowledge amidsts the Garden of Eden

Creation of female and snake

Order to Abraham to sacrifice his son

Plagues and ruin of the Egypts

Israel's sons kill Sichem's men and rob the town but God managed that they did not get punished.

The Flood

Every torture of a living being

But God is certainly not even omnipotent. Why did he need 6 days (and another day of rest) to create what an omnipotent God would have accomplished immediately?

It is clear that, if he exists, not all his properties are infinite (consider the scholastic proof that he cannot make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it or the other way round).

If he exists he can be understood like a player of games like Age of Empires which would be boring if everything evolved without conflicts.

So the answer to your question is: Your premise is false.

  • The Bible doesn't claim that God is "infinitely merciful"; rather, He is righteous in the execution of His justice, so all suffering is without exception the result of man's sin and God's just retribution or discipline. We cannot answer "why" with respect to particular cases, but we can say with complete certainty that God is good and worthy to be praised.
    – user3017
    Jan 1, 2018 at 13:17
  • Your answer in general is characterized by hasty assumptions and a poor understanding about what the Bible actually teaches. For example, the Bible doesn't teach that God needed 6 days for the creation, but it does teach that the angels glorified God during the process, so it's reasonable to assume that God allotted 6 days for them to marvel in its magnificence.
    – user3017
    Jan 1, 2018 at 13:39
  • @Pé de Leão: There is no "man's sin". It is at most God's sin to have created humans and other creatures as they are. We can say with absolute certainly (see the examples in my answer) that the God described in the bible is neither good nor merciful but violent tempered and without self-control like a typical clan chief in those times. Alas, I am sure, if a God exists, he will laugh about all religions and "holy books" to be in vogue here.
    – Hilbert7
    Jan 1, 2018 at 13:39
  • @Pé de Leão: My statement concerns a statement by Cantor: "God, the all-wise and all-merciful" [G. Cantor, letter to C. Hermite (22 Jan 1894)].
    – Hilbert7
    Jan 1, 2018 at 13:43
  • @Wilhelm We have to think of a set of historical possibilities that you yourself, right at this moment, are involved in working out. In this regard, Max Weber and Ernst Bloch and even Hegel may offer some ideas. So this problem of a particular God, the ideas flowing from this, offer certain possibilities than man endlessly struggles over, but since they are in the "arena of possibilities" so to speak they could achieve a reality. "Plagues and ruin of the Egypts", woman and snake etc., yes these things are even comical, but we probably should keep them in the set, to preserve possibilities.
    – Gordon
    Jan 1, 2018 at 16:05

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .