The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

Okay lol

[The Architect Of Fate]

Okay lol

Yes it is okay 

[Foxaèr]

The point here: Christianity accounts for imperfection.

Inadequately, by labeling people with the term sinner. Then accounting for perfection as put forth by the existence of Jesus, thus having created an example impossible for any fallible human to emulate.

[The Grand Nudger]

So does my space monkey narrative, how should we decide to take one more seriously than the other ?

You can take them equally serious. But deciding between them doesn't matter if the Earth isn't designed.

What you might have noticed, if you were reading the responses that you've gotten, is that it doesn't matter if the earth is designed, either. We appear to be considering an idea far less than wrong.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The point here: Christianity accounts for imperfection.

Not really the idea a perfect god could fail or its plans could be undermined is absurd. Unless god intended his creation to fail which makes even less sense.

[possibletarian]

Also what do the terms 'good' and 'very good' mean to a perfect being ?

Surely the standard for a perfect being who its claimed can make anything must be at the very least 'suitable for the created purpose'

I wouldn't expect a solar system that will kill us one, day, earthquakes, disease and eruptions to fit that criteria. There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was ever more friendly to its occupants, in fact their is evidence that it was much less friendly and had extinction level events even before humanity appeared.

Narrative is only important if you can show it matches the reality of the world around us, otherwise literally any story no matter how ridiculous would be suitable. Clearly the narrative in the bible (and other religious texts) were written when they only knew a world of disease pain and suffering, some choose the path of playful and uncaring gods, others decided to have a loving god, but it is all our fault. You would absolutely expect a religious narrative to try and fit the world around it, unfortunately some have not adapted and now just look silly.

[Belacqua]

There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was ever more friendly to its occupants, in fact their is evidence that it was much less friendly and had extinction level events even before humanity appeared.

This makes me wonder how we apply the idea of perfection to the world. How do we judge?

I think the word "perfect" can probably be applied in two ways. If we talk about "a perfect circle," it means that the example we have in mind meets exactly a precise definition. But if we say "a perfect cup of coffee," we mean that it has the all qualities we like in coffee and none of those we don't. The first usage can't be debated. But the second is based on desire, and if someone disagrees we have no objective grounds for argument. 

To say that the world is imperfect seems to me to be of the second type. It means that the world isn't the way we WANT it to be. But why should it be what we want? And why do we assume that our desires are at all important to an omniscient being? I understand that we really really don't want there to be cancer in children, but again, saying that such things make the world imperfect is merely to say that we don't LIKE it. 

In the old days people used to value humility, and were willing to admit that maybe they didn't have the capacity to judge. Humility is very much out of fashion now, so we all seem to assume that our own desires are what an omniscient being would do if there were one.

[The Grand Nudger]

All you're saying is that you like humility, you have no objective grounds for that, and it's no argument against subpar design or construction. Go complain about humility when an airbag doesn't fire you cretin. Talk about the old days with someone who, like you, sees no problems with their profligate judgements, sees no problem with a naked lie, and sees no problems with a god who makes kiddie cancer world...but, instead, refers to all of it as a problem of humility on the part of those being harmed.

I'm consistently surprised by just how defective apologists are as people. Is that also part of an omniscient beings plans or designs? If we're at the point where we're willing to say that..yeah, shit is completely terrible, but that's just like, subjective, maaaaan...then we've read god for incompetent filth and run out of excuses to defend it.

[R00tKiT]

and sees no problems with a god who makes kiddie cancer world.

I don't get it why you fools still allude to the problem of evil. We are not omniscient beings, THEREFORE we cannot say "kiddie cancer is inherently bad". What if these dead children are having better lives than you and I at this moment, right now ? So, again ...are you an omniscient being ?

[Foxaèr]

I don't get why theistic fools still allude to god existing as though there is an abundance of evidence to support its existence.