Nice hijack

Suggesting God is perfect is not the same as suggesting the world is perfect.

Also, it's really hard to justify your position as the result of "deductive reasoning." It's more like you've made an assumption about what would constitute a perfect world, and concluded that the world does not match your assumptions.

Define it anyway you like but don't dodge answer the question.

You da man A.W.

You da man.

There is nothing to indicate sharks have a non-reality component equal to metaphysical claims as to what souls are. Then again there are no indications any being on earth has this.

The question shows a fundamental error in understanding evolution as it supposes practicing morality is a higher state. The question is therefore completely moot.

The question is fundamentally flawed in a way that is big favorite in theology discussion and this is annoying: Asking if A is still A if it changes is stupid AND pointless.

Nobody itt is talking in absolutes, on either side. So, non-absolutely, I have major difficulty in equating this world with a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-resourceful.

All we can do is look at it from our own perspective, ideally implementing maximum logic (imo), as it seems to be as close to a lifeblood of absolutes as anything else.

I understand people are responsible, in one way or another, for a lot of the bad on this planet. I don't profess to believe it sohuld be a perfect world, but it only makes sense to me (again, non-definitively) those who believe, worship and honor God aught to get some sort of package.

Some food everyday, a roof over their head.

If 5,000 people can be fed with 2 fish and a loaf of bread, the opportunity cost of God allowing thousands of impoverished innocents seems astounding.

It befuddles me, for arguments sake, God has exhibited great miracles in Biblical times... yet has completely been absent since communication and media has improved from 'word of mouth.'

A country can't get a week's supply of food one day, raining fresh fish and bread? Jesus can't heal a few amputees each decade in a way which helps give faith credibility?

Again... the non-use of resource, in its INFINITE abundance, even on occasion, in a definitive fashion, is just too puzzling to me.

If God does exist, he's the equivalent of a kid who buys gerbils and doesn't feed 'em when they get out of hand. Maybe he did a while ago, but non-definitive actions, with (Biblical) definitive precedent screams in the face of consistency and logic imo

grunching the thread but did anyone say "consequence of the Fall" yet?

Hey no fair t_d. No solving logic problems for rize.

You've just taken all the fun out of my innocuous obnoxiousness (I like the sound of that. I think I just made up a tongue twister.)

Since suggesting god is perfect doesn't seem to suggest anything about the world, I'll conclude that the properties of god are not deducable from the properties of the world.

In short; I'd be careful about the whole "assumption" argument you are currently making as you are indirectly admitting that belief in god is only possible as an assumption.

LOL false implication.

Have you read the thread? This is the extent of the "logical deduction" provided:

I think I'm being quite reasonable in my description of rize's logic thus far. I see no reason that this has any bearing on the matter of the existence of or belief in God.

The world is ours. What we do with it is up to us. It's not that "God let those things happen", but rather we did that to ourselves. Maybe you don't want to see it for what it is - human action, not divine inaction.

thank you for saving me 15 minutes of my life

LOL.

So the starving children in the image above had the ability and resources to find and eat food, but just chose not to according to you?

I don't want to argue about it in this thread, but you should take a moment to contemplate the definition of "innocents" you mean in this paragraph. Innocent of what?

God was "completely absent" for 400 years between the Old and New Testaments. He was also "completely absent" for a period of time when the Israelites (well, the Hebrews back then) were prospering in Egypt before Pharaoh oppressed them.

I can understand that you see the world materialistically, and therefore are looking for God to manifest himself in materialistic ways. To a Christian, the most important resource is God's abundant grace, which has been (and continues to be) bestowed upon mankind.

Why does God's creation have to be perfect? And how do you persume to know what a divinity sees as perfection anyways?

It kinda sucks when one is born a snake or a serpent. Can anyone explain why snakes have been around longer than man?

Because it makes absolutely no sense for a perfect being to make something imperfect.

I don't claim to know absolutely. I just claim to know what seems most reasonable and most logical today.

Why not?

There's that word again...

We've seen that the most "logical" position for you is to be against abortions, but you don't take a political position because you have no strong "feelings" about it. We've also seen that there was no "logic" that leads you to conclude that peace is universally preferred above violence.

It seems that you're not using logic at all.

If you assume God exist and created this world then its logical to assume the world is perfectly suited for God's purposes.

Its silly to think God's purposes and our own desires would be one in the same but thats exactly the foundation of your argument.

Try not to be purposefully foolish, please. Though if you can't help yourself, that's a bigger problem. It's other people that have the ability and resources to help feed the starving, but choose not to.

If you're of the belief that everything happens the way it does and there's nothing we can do about it, then I can see why the idea of shaping the world by our hands is a silly notion to you. Pause and look around your room for a minute. Everything around you, your chair, table, computer, pens and other tools, your house and even the clothes you're wearing started out as an idea that one or more people had and decided to work towards making that idea a reality.

Sometimes the wisdom of old adages are useful, like "you sleep in the bed you make." In the unfortunate case of Africa the common denominator of the status quo is the decisions of tribal leaders deciding to war with each other, usually over resources or ethnic differences. Let's got into that discussion.

Who is "my neighbor" ?

why exactly is that silly?

Do you think it's fair or "perfect" that african children pay for the wrong decisions of their ancestors?

Grunch:

So an animal killing is okay?

That means an animal killing a human is okay. Which means we could get around this pesky abortion issue if we could teach some animal how to perform the operation. Sweet!

Is it fair or "perfect" that children whose parents are living in relative wealth and prosperity remain in relative wealth and prosperity? Or would you argue that it is more fair or "perfect" if those children were taken down a few notches (or many notches, depending on how wealthy the parents are), and reduced to living in a state of "average" wealth and prosperity? (You can choose how you are going to define "average.")

Based on some information I've found in a cursory search of the internet, it looks like the average wealth in the world is about $20k USD. The average wealth of a person in the US is $140k USD. This means (in very rough terms) that in the US you're taking away about 85% of the wealth that the parents had from the children. Is this fair or "perfect" to you?