the biblical god knowingly hates children

Holy heck, what an argument. I don't have time to hit every point you put forward, but basically what you're arguing here is that since God not only allows bad things to happen to good people, but also pure and innocent ones, it must show a motive of hate, correct? Now, please keep in mind as we go through this argument that you are arguing that children, specifically, are singled out by God and undeserving of their conditions. If you would like to amend that and extend this argument to all human peoples, let me know in your response. First off, you an assumption in presenting this argument that children are purer than the rest of humanity and thereby deserving of special treatment. Otherwise, you are simply making an argument against a chaotic world and the unfairness of life in general. For the first section I will take the liberty of dismantling both of these viewpoints before moving on. If you, by some measure, believe that God hates children at a higher degree than the rest of humanity, then you are wrong. For children face trouble in this life just as much as anyone else, and the fact that they are in the process of development and/or less capable of resisting force has no bearing on that. If we are to go by the Christian doctrine and create internal arguments against God through His own word, the purpose of why we are here on this Earth is not so that we can face no trouble. This fact should be taken as a given, for if we were to face no trouble on this Earthly life then we might as well be in heaven. Upon acceptance of this point that trouble is to be expected in the world, we can thereby assume that everyone will face trials in this life, regardless of race, gender, creed, or in this instance, age. Therefore, if we are to consider God as an omnipotent being without bias, we can expect no special treatment among children in trials of this life, therefore natural struggles such as disease are immediately justified *if we assume that the chaotic world is an acceptable concept*. I will further elaborate on this later in debate. As for human-inflicted struggles, such as abuse and domestic violence, these also fall under the blanket of the chaotic world but can be further justified by realizing the burden of this abuse is not on God. You state in one of your theses not to make the Free Will argument applying to children, for they have no control over the events that happen to them, and I respect your point *in that sense*. However, we have to realize that the burden of free will falls not on the children, but their tormentors, therefore this logic does not apply here. The Free Will argument does apply in this instance, you only attempt to dismantle it by placing the burden on the wrong subject. Free Will is a concept that all humans are given the right by God to make their own decisions - ALL humans, meaning the tormentors themselves are included in this statement. By simplifying free will down to the single instance of the child, you are omitting this detail and thereby making a flawed attack on the argument. With consideration that all humans are deserving of free will, and under the assumption that God is under the obligation to grant it to them, the burden of blame falls to those who choose to commit their actions; not God himself. And thus we are led to the statement which should have been obvious in the first place: the horrors committed upon children are the fault of their tormentors alone, not the God who allows them to do it. For if God was to strike down everyone who reached out a finger to harm a child, this would undermine the concept of people's right to choose wrong, making the world no longer malleable and no longer free. If need be, there is a whole load of issues that come in association with to inability to access Free Will, and I will refer to these arguments later in debate if need be. Now, moving onto the chaotic world argument, which I will be making to prove that trials happening to anyone, whether deserving or undeserving, are justified. In this world, it is obvious that we do not live in an environment simply designed to care for humans, otherwise, again, we would already be in heaven. Nothing bad would happen to us, and no harm would ever be done. Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that humans are not the center of God's design, if we are to believe Scripture is indicative of His character. Presumably, it would follow that God Himself would take the center as the object to this design, but this assumption is not relevant to the point following, which holds true regardless: Humans, not being the center of the universe and its design, can expect the universe in some ways to work against them, these ways coming as harms in the form of nature or otherwise. Establishing that children, as human beings too, are capable of thought and experience just as the rest of us, even if this occurs in a lower or developmental capacity, they can expect to face disease and harms of nature in equal capacity, without bias or discrimination, in the same way that nature inflicts harms on all. This, in itself, is the chaotic world argument: reiterating, that everyone can expect to face adversity in this life, and children are no exception. This is made fair by not only the point that I have already given, but also the fact that humans themselves created the imperfections in this world (I'm sure I don't have to re-tell the whole story about Adam and Eve), and thereby under the Free Will argument, stating that the consequences of one's actions are attributable to themselves alone, the burden again shifts onto man. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, when we hold the value of Free Will in any capacity and operate under the criterion that a chaotic world can be expected to harm without discrimination, there falls no burden through any of this upon God. With these points and values held fully and without exception, I now stand ready for rebutting arguments.