The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

The problem is the claims made about a persons chosen deity, who in the case of christianity claim is a perfect being, that created a world that  same being declared as 'good'.  Perhaps good does not mean good in the way that we expect, in which case what's is the point of using the word at all, if it's totally disconnected from anything we can understand.

There has to be some way to measure what everyone means by perfection. I think the "as intended" definition is good because it provides a template from which to measure divergence. (Even if that template is not accessible to us.)

If a circle was intended to be circular, then it can be said to be perfect. If a circle intended to be circular comes out oval, then it isn't perfect.

(I also think we should avoid saying: Circles aren't perfect because they're not square.)

You might want to take a look at the following thread for ideas.

Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'?

---

Re: Klorox, this seems to be the rationalization that harm is not harm if the victim is compensated. Does that mean that a billionaire can punch you in the junk, so long as he gives you money afterward?