god hates children

I accept, thanks for setting this up.There is no connection between Pro's observations and conclusion. S/he assumes that god is in control of suffering inflicted on children and that the conclusion must be that suffering is a result of god's hatred.Pro fails to demonstrate that suffering is a direct result of god's hatred toward children.Assuming a god has control over who suffers and when there are many other explanations for suffering. It could be used as a punishment for sins in past lives as suggested by Hinduism. It's possible that god prefers suffering to pleasure and inflicts suffering as a result of love or another emotion. God may inflict suffering to build character, compassion empathy etc. There is simply no reason to assume that if he inflicts or allows suffering that it is motivated by hatred. There are many possible explanation.God may have no direct control over suffering.There are many examples of suffering and no research or any form of inquery has been able to establish that there is supernatural causation behind it. If a god exists it may have no control or limited control over human suffering as in the greek gods that were in no way all powerful/omnipotent. Pro assumes that there is a god without establishing that any god exists. With no evidence for the existence of a god or gods the default position is that no gods exist and Pros resolution is nonsensical. We cannot assume that god hates children until we establish that he exists.Pro assumes the god of the bible along with many attributes.Ive suggested this but Pro spends half the time suggesting that since children do not speak or are not heard from in the bible god hates them. If any of the thousands of gods that people have believed in exist, with the exeption of one, the bible is irrelavent. If the god of the bible exists there are many possible reasons not to include quotes from children. There is no connection to hatred here and there are many versus in the bible that indicate that god values and even loves children.Psalm 127:3 "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."Mattew 18:2-6 "He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." They also sing in Mattew 21:15 contrary to what Pro suggests, " But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant. " Irrelevant arguments Pro argues that God must be all powerfull or not care. This has nothing to do with the resolution because this only negates the Pro position and are concessions on Pro's part. Pro's case rests on the idea that God is all powerful and therefore able to prevent suffering. Pro concedes that a god that is not all powerful or simply does not care about suffering are alternate explanations for god's behavior and this concedes that the resolution has not been proven. A god that is not all powerful could love and not hate children but be unable to prevent suffering. A god that is apathetic to the suffering of children certainly does not hate them.Pro mades concessions that negate his position. S/he cannot establish a connection between child suffering or lack of presence in the bible and a necessary hatred of children. Pro has done virtually nothing to establish the resolution.