Another hypothetical for theists.

[Amarok]

You are entitled to your opinion. IMO your certainty is unjustified and not a sound basis on which to make any theological pronouncements. Personally, I don't know as a logical certainty that a world without bloodshed can be attained without sacrificing other potentially greater goods of which I am not aware.

Ah just repeating dear Alvin's" greater good "argument. Yeah because an unstated unsupported "greater good " is such a good escape hatch 

Oh no it's really not 

---

You are entitled to your opinion. IMO your certainty is unjustified and not a sound basis on which to make any theological pronouncements. Personally, I don't know as a logical certainty that a world without bloodshed can be attained without sacrificing other potentially greater goods of which I am not aware.

If you disagree with what I said, then there's something not right with your reasoning, because such a disagreement implies that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher under naturalism than under theism. This is clearly not rational.

Note we're not talking logical certainties here, we're doing probabilities.

But Grand the "greater unknown baseless unsupported good that theists pull out their assess to explain away why the universe looks ungodly"  Essentially it's moral version of Banned design argument . And just as silly .