Unconvincing and flawed says the hardheaded Christian who made a vow to his institution. Thatās why youāre beholden to Westminster nonsense and canāt consider for even one second that you may be wrong. And you are wrong. Perfection is a priori. A perfectly good being wouldnāt create parasites and wouldnāt make it look as though animal and human disease come from one and the same source. Because thatās what the facts dictate. So nah man, youāre still dead wrong and brainwashed
I havenāt made any vows. I never signed any doctrinal statements. But the fact that you assume I did just shows how badly you wish I was some brainwashed drone. It would be easier for you if I was because then you could just continue to recycle your silly little arguments. Instead, you have to actually contend with what Iām saying, only you canāt. You canāt even get the objective vs subjective distinction down so rather than acknowledge your shortcomings you just turn to attacking the school I went to as if that does anything to support your point.
You say a perfectly good being wouldnāt create parasites, I say that he would and did. Now what? Now you have to prove why a perfectly good God wouldnāt do that. Try doing so without appealing to your subjective feelings on the matter. Show me why itās impossible for a good God to will animal death and suffering. Iām waiting. Until then, yes, your arguments are utterly unconvincing and inherently flawed.Ā
To anon: To know what perfect design is, you have to know intent. Always keeping a child away from any risk of harm is perfect parenting if the intent is exclusively to keep the child from getting hurt; but if your intent as a parent is to let them experience the world and learn, then maybe sometimes you let them fall and scrape their knee. To know if any system is perfectly designed, you have to know what it is intended to do. To say you know what perfection of the world is assumes that you know the intent of the world (and from a materialistic worldview, there is none). So if you assume to know what perfection of the world is, you assume to know the intent of the world, thereby assuming Godās existence, because for there to be intent there has to be a Creator to intend something. Intent behind the worldās existence does not arise from a naturalistic worldview.Ā
Specifically, youāve assumed Godās intent must be to create a world without suffering. What if his intent were instead to train up people whom he loves to rule alongside him in accordance with his character? What if in the pursuit of that end he deemed it best to allow suffering in order to train those people to respond in compassion to suffering, because compassion is part of his character? In order for your argument to hold any water, there has to be absolutely no logically conceivable world in which allowing suffering could be beneficial. All that is required is the possibilityĀ that God could have a reason to allow suffering, and your perfection argument collapses.
