Another hypothetical for theists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A world in which killing, for whatever reason, is a necessity is a world that is much more likely under naturalism than under supernatural theism (especially one that posits a loving and caring deity).

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.

[Amarok]

I think you misunderstand me.

Nope we understand your derp 

My point is that the Problem of Evil, from the skeptics side, is not a logical argument;

Yes it is because if a good god their is no reason evil should .

but rather, an emotional one based on incredulity.

Nope but nice try 

That you believe the world could be better has nothing to do with whether or not it actually could be.

Actually it does because it means said world is conceivable and possibly and for a creator god doable 

Secondly the state of the world most likely could be dramatically improved if everyone, including myself, always behaved like the best person they could be.

Or it could be if a supposedly perfect being made us perfect . Shifting the blame to humans to get your god off the hook will not work. 

That we choose not to do so isn't God's fault 

Yes it is the buck stops with your god. Appealing to freewill won't help you.

and doesn't negate that idea that it all started out pretty good until people started messing with each other

Yup and it's all your gods fault it went to shit blaming humans and appealing to free will is not going to help you. The buck stops with the creator .

[GrandizerII]

A world in which killing, for whatever reason, is a necessity is a world that is much more likely under naturalism than under supernatural theism (especially one that posits a loving and caring deity).

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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

Yeah, theists aren't very good at probabilities.

[PaulieLoafer]

I like the question . I'm new here so excuse whatever there is needing to be excused....or not. If truly GOD existed, there would be no people.....unless, of course, the god was bored and selfish and immature and evil and destructive and had some sort of god complex. So my answer is that a world with a God would be so very quiet and uninhabited....except for TV....which would be all special effects and blue screens (or is it green)... and much more entertaining for being so.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Now your're lowering the bar for yourself. Initially, you maintained that the current world is incompatible with theism. Now, you maintain that it's probably incompatible.

That's my point. Your opinion of what is probable and what is not probable is just a judgment call. You're making an emotional argument based on your inability to imagine counterbalancing goods. Your proposed world is comparable to that of the Lotus Eaters - one without moral agency, honor, fortitude, or courage. Those are virtues that give meaning and value to human existence. Now are those virtues enough to justify the level of bloodshed we see in the world? Maybe not. But I am open to the idea that there are other goods I haven't yet considered that would tip the balance. You've already made up your mind - probably because you are filled with such anti-religious bigotry that you will not concede even the possibility that I could be right.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Guys, we may be living in a multiverse.

In this multiverse there is a universe with an earth with one thing different.
There is a God who made it all. No question about it.

What would this earth look like? How would our laws of physics be in comparison?
Would this affect our laws and ethics?

First we'd need to know what kind of god made it. If it was a malicious god or one that does not want to be known, then it might not be that different from what we see already. Such a god would create an environment to make it look like it did not exist by deliberately and consistently planting fossils in the ground, setting up the evolutionary process and creating an absolutely massive universe many billions of years old to fool the population of one small planet. If it was a malicious god it would then set up a Hell as punishment for not believing after deliberately making it difficult to believe for anyone who dares question.

[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 .

[Catholic_Lady]

As to answering your question, no, I don't think killing for food is evil. I also don't think it's "good". I think it's the result of the natural world we live in and necessary for ecosystem balance.

Only because it evolved. If it was designed then it wouldn't have to be that way and suffering wouldn't have to exist for it's everything to stay alive. That was my point. You're the one that used the word evil, not me.

Igno used the word evil. I was responding to him.

And yeah, that's exactly my point. Earth evolved. I'm not a creationist.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Now your're lowering the bar for yourself. Initially, you maintained that the current world is incompatible with theism. Now, you maintain that it's probably incompatible.

Or you're not reading me well. Didn't I clearly state the word "likely" in my initial response to CL?

That's my point. Your opinion of what is probable and what is not probable is just a judgment call. You're making an emotional argument based on your inability to imagine counterbalancing goods.

What the fuck are you on about? I'm using Bayesian reasoning here. Hardly emotional.

Your proposed world is comparable to that of the Lotus Eaters - one without moral agency, honor, fortitude, or courage. Those are virtues that give meaning and value to human existence. Now are those virtues enough to justify the level of bloodshed we see in the world? Maybe not. But I am open to the idea that there are other goods I haven't yet considered that would tip the balance. You've already made up your mind - probably because you are filled with such anti-religious bigotry that you will not concede even the possibility that I could be right.

This has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry (even if I did display this on a regular basis), but everything to do with proper reasoning. Do you agree that this world as it is has a higher likelihood under naturalism than under theism? Note I am NOT asking you if this actual world is impossible, or even improbable, given theism. This actual world could be 60% likely under theism, for all I care. But if that's the case, then a higher likelihood should be given of such a world under naturalism, if only for the sake of reason! And then following through via Bayes' theorem, we are compelled to then lower the credence for theism and increase the credence for naturalism for this one specific case, regardless of what the initial credences were that you assigned to each. Of course, it's not the end-all, be-all, because if we are to use Bayesian reasoning properly and honestly, we have to consider all factors, all observed facts, and all the evidence that we have access to. But in this one specific case, the win does go to naturalism without a single doubt simply because the likelihood of this world without bloodshed under naturalism would reasonably be incredibly low (compared to under theism).