lol

roaches and twinkies are actually God's mysterious plan... RGT can be locked, we've figured it out folks

Is it not universal that if we're dealing with a creator working way above us, it's much more desirable and logical for him/her/it to allocate his work in the means of non-hurtfulness rather than the opposite?

Particularly when it's encouraged to be peaceful

I never asked you to prove anything. I just wanted to affirm that you're making a universal truth claim about the nature of "violence." I guess now you've added that this is just an assertion, and nothing more.

Do you consider animals eating plants to be violence against the plants?

Why is it more "desirable and logical"? Because you said so?

You also need to be more specific about the nature of this "creator." Are you saying that the principles that he/she/it has given to humans must also apply to animals?

Does this mean you are pro-life on abortion?

No tangents please. Just curious about the OP's answer.

I find abortion to be a complicated issue that I have no strong feelings about.

To be honest, I tend to stay away from political issues completely.

How about now you try answering the question in the OP?

No tangents please.

I'm saying I have no idea.

Logically one with unlimited resources or allocation, whom preaches against violence, would (in my mind) tend to successfully rescind a ton of violence from his master plan.

Of course there are tons of deaths orchestrated by God in the Bible, but his Son was the opposite, so I'm kind of going by that.

Again I'm just thinking out loud, I tend to not invest certainty into anything without evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXOIdu8bHuo

So let's rephrase the question as an logical one instead of a political one.

Given that you

and that you imply in this thread that violence in the form animals destroying the lives of other animals of the same species should be interpreted as not "the best," are you willing to conclude that abortion is similarly not "the best"?

I suppose. If god exists, there again, would be an infinite number of ways of taking care of and valuing children that are unwanted by society. He choses to allow them to be aborted.

This is a use of "logically" that really bothers me. If it is "logical" then you should be able to point to the specific assumptions that lead you to your conclusions. If the basis for your conclusion is "in [your] mind" then this cannot be rightly viewed as "logic."

An atheist would not allow a theist such specious reasoning.

I'm amused that you threw out this red herring. None of the statements that lead to the conclusion that abortion is "not the best" have anything to do with God's omnipotence. It's all derived from belief statements that you have claimed to hold.

Edit: Almost forgot my conclusion!

I find that your belief system leads you to a conclusion that should be independent of your "feelings." Are you willing to face the inevitable conclusions of your beliefs?

Do shark's have family?

Your OP makes it sound like they don't because they eat each other in the womb and because they swim away from their mother upon birth.

So they are independent at birth unlike primates.

Do sharks have family?

Your OP makes it sound like they don't because they eat each other in the womb and because they swim away from their mother upon birth.

So they are independent at birth unlike primates.

So you're making the argument then that pointless violence is or can be valuable to god?

That kind of proves the point of this thread to begin with. God isn't perfect or all loving.

So because they were designed to be independent it also makes it ok to tear their brothers and sisters into pieces in the womb?

If god was all loving, why wouldn't he like, design them to love each other?

Why wouldn't he give them another way of receiving nourishment, other than cannibalizing their sisters?

Hey are we really debating SHARK MORALITY? I thought the point to understand about sharks is they are born cold blooded killers. We don't even know if they feel pain in the womb.

I also don't know if their anatomical systems are developed enough to know right from wrong. Maybe morality is not of critical functional significance in a shark's world.

Read Genesis God originally designed Paradise with no thorns on the roses. It took the Fall for the world to change.

Also sharks could have been purposed as nature's cleaning machines. They hone in on the hurt prey. It limits the amount of impure decomposition in the oceans.

Why would you apply human morality to sharks?

Who said anything about "pointless"? Also, good job equivocating on "is" (declarative) and "can be" (mere possibility).

I don't think you've managed to make either point.

I didn't invite you in here. If you don't want to discuss it, don't click the link. Simple.


Or god could have just designed animals without having to decompose in impure ways.........................

Do sharks have a soul?

And if they do, can it be developed or evolve into a higher state by practicing morality? Would a shark still be a shark if it learned to say "Mind if I take a bite out of you?"

Note: we see God as an actor here. He's clearly "designed" nature with a purpose whether or not we agree with that purpose.

Isn't nature almost systematic in the way it cleans up behind itself?

If we're going to go in this direction, you're going to have to define soul for me and prove that it exists.

Okay I think I understand now. You do not believe God created this world because it looks nothing like this

You're the one that suggests god is perfect. I'm just using deductive reasoning to figure out what a world would look like if it were created "perfectly" and I'm pretty sure it would be almost the exact opposite of the one we live in.

Also, your unprovoked condescension and exaggeration of opposing views is pretty unchristian.

Okay I think I understand now. You believe God created this world because it looks everything like this