The dead baby theory is a theory I created in order to logically prove the unlikelyness of the existence of the Christian God. It is a personal theory which I've wheeled out on occasion, and I've never known anyway to come up with a sufficient flaw in it. I can think of one minor assumptive flaw myself, although I don't think anyone else has ever noticed, and I invite criticism and deconstruction of this theory.

First, let's set a few points. Assuming the existence of God, we also assume he is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. That is, he loves people, and wants us to do the right things in our lives so that we go to heaven, and can do whatever he feels should be done in order to make this possible. (By the way, this isn't the assumptive flaw I mentioned above; this describes the Christian God, which is the one I am discussing in this theory. My theory is not intended to be a blanket argument against ANY God.)

Now let's look at birth. A baby is born; God could presumably look at the content of its soul right then, realise if it's good or bad, and send it off to heaven or hell without that silly life business in the way. He's all-powerful and all-seeing, after all. But he doesn't; so we can take this to mean that, at birth, the contents of a persons' character is not set. That the person cannot be said to be good or evil until they have lived long enough to have demonstrated it. Life is a test to discover what kind of person you will be.

And it can be a harsh test. Some people live very tragic lives, filled with nothing but undeserved heartache. It's fair to say that some people are given much easier rides than others, but we can say this is a part of Gods plan.

But if that is the case... why do babies die? Where do they go?

The first theory has to be that babies are pure souls, and will all go to heaven, so their death is, from the point of view of a God, not unloving. It may have been punishment to the parents for something they did, for example, or part of Gods plan. But, if at this early moment of birth every baby is free of sin, then why not simply have every baby die at birth? I mean, He's God; if procreation is absolutely required, he can fit it into the system somewhere that doesn't require people actually growing up. He's a loving entity who wants the best for all his children, so why not kill them all straight away to bring them to Heaven, before they have a chance to sin? And before they have a chance to live through tragedy? Bare in mind that baby death is only horrible to us because we're losing the baby... from the point of view of God, death is the end of the soul's exile, and the start of its true existence.

So this theory must be discounted. The second theory, however, is even more troubling; that, for whatever reason, the souls of babies are NOT all pure. Perhaps they gain the sins of the parents; this seems to be in line with Christian doctrine, and the idea of baptisement. This is an even worse thought; it means condemning some children to hell, before giving them a chance to cleanse themselves of these sins. And why? God would not allow the death of a young innocent unless it was within the framework of a greater plan... and even if we cannot fathom the plan, it still leaves the reality that the plan has condemned that child (indeed, those children) to unwarranted, unavoidable damnation.

We have to assume that a baby with an unclean soul, but no chance to redeem themselves, would not be taken... and as we're already assuming God cannot tell the content of the soul, this would be the same for all babies whether their souls are free from sin or not. We can then match this with the original theory of life being a test... that children come into the world either with or without sin, and are then given a chance to either condemn or redeem themselves. But this is measurable, and untrue; a single stillbirth is too many for this theory.

So to summarise;

  1. If God can see whether a soul will grow up to be good or evil, He could send them the correct way without needing to make them go through an often painful life on Earth first. He does not do this, so life on Earth is neccessary, which means He cannot see how a soul will develop. (Or He can but makes us go through life anyway, which is not loving.)
  2. If God cannot see into the soul of a child, but all children are born without sin, they we should all die at birth as allowing them to live longer and potentially develop sin and experience unneccessary hardship is not loving.
  3. If God cannot see into the souls of children AND some children are born with and without sin, then NO child should die before they have been baptised or had an opportunity to release their sins. To allow any child to die earlier than this, without any way of telling whether the soul is bound for heaven or hell, is an unloving act.

We know that none of these 3 is the case. Thefore, the view of the loving Christian God cannot, through this logic, be correct.