against intelligent creator?

[omega2xx]

You're welcome to your opinion, and i support it. But it's just that, remember it.

And what you believe about the existence of God is also just your opinion.

I have no problem with this if you admit it being an opinion, and you do.

My belief that God exist is not my opinion, it is my belief.

What evidence? You just talked about your opinions. By definition, your opinions cannot be compelling evidence. And judging from what i see, you're still not using the same definitions for "evidence" and "proof" as others are. I'm using the dictionary definitions.

My evidence is the creation. My reason for believing it points to a Creator, is because nothing can't be the cause of something.

And the burden of proof is on you if you make claims. I am not making claims about creation or creators, you'll notice. I am not even demanding evidence of you. I am merely doing this:

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am simply giving some of the reasons why I do.

Pointing out that YOUR COMMENT was factually incorrect. I am not talking about your views. Only how you presented them.

If you think it was factually incorrect, that's fine with me.

At least you admit it being an opinion. But you are making an assumption about me without knowing anything about me: I didn't argue against the existence of god(s.)

How are you qualified to judge my person? I didn't present my views, or even my beliefs in any way. I was arguing your comments, not your beliefs. You are trying to distort this into about MY beliefs now.

Why?

Because all of your comments point to you not believing in the existence of God. If I have misread you, I'm sorry.

You didn't even address any of the points i made, really. You just said what you wanted to say, and they have very little bearing on what i actually said. I think you're proselytizing instead of debating.

Have I ask you to believe anything?

I didn't say it IS a moral decision. That's an absolute statement. You're quick to make such statements, but i made no such thing: I said that it CAN be.

When you said you try t do no harem, that sounds like a moral concept to me.

And it can: You can base your veganism on your moral codes. For example; Most vegans i know are vegans because of their morality: They abhor eating animals for the SOLE reason that it requires the animal to be dead. They don't like killing animals, or even knowing that they are supporting such behavior. Not because they prefer food that's barely usable to humans without supplements anyway... [/QUOTE]

Why do you think it is immoral to kill and eat animals?

I would say people can become vegans based on the moral decision. It is a decision after all, and you can base your decision on anything. Even blind faith like you seem to be doing.

Since there is noting moral about animals, IMO becoming a vegan is not a moral concept.

FYI: I am not a vegan.

You sure sound like one, but I will take your word for it.

 

[omega2xx]

Proofs, by definition, are tools used to verify a claim (for example). If it cannot be used to verify a claim, it isn't proof.

The claim is god exists. There is proof he does not as an entity. There is proof "he" does exist by language, culture, and tradition. The proof verifies his (or the) existence of god in the latter and I can show he does not in the former.

It is funny, though. Just because it is religious and many many people believe in god does not make it more true than thousands of people believing an invisible pen is in my hand even when I show them there is not. The complexity of how people make god seem does not mean he is complex by definition. I can't remember what it is called, but there is a term for believing something is true because more than a handful of people believe it is rather than understanding the claim by evaluating things beyond synchronicities and personal experiences.

Plus, you have to prove that what you have are proofs first of the claim to see if it makes sense or can verify the claim. Everyone says god is unknowable, believed by faith, invisible, cosmos, we have limited knowledge, and so forth.

You guys are making god too complex than what it is.

Shrugs.

There is no proof that God does not exist. SHRUG

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is no proof that God does not exist. SHRUG

So how do you know he exists when you have no proof?

What is your existence of god based on if nothing is proof of his existence?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was mainly asking about your moral principles. Becoming vegan or not becoming vegan is not a moral decision.

And this, right here proves to me an error in your thinking. I became vegan due to the unnecessary and unethical treatment of animals raised for food. For me, veganism is ALL about my code of morality.

Everyone has a conscience but what the conscience accepts as good or bad is not the same in everyone. How do you know yours is right?

I know that you don't know yours is "right" any better than I know mine is. Want to know how I know this? Because even within the ranks or your Abrahamic faith - regardless what you practice - I know that there are various sects having splintered off due to many differences - some of those having to do with what some persons or group felt was "right" or "wrong" in the practices/behavior of their "bretheren." So you see, even the picture of morality from "God" is apparently open to interpretation or addendum. One group feels dancing is the work of the devil, and prohibits it. Another congregation feels that consuming alcohol leads to sin and ruin, and so discourages that, or even breaks off to form their own church, calling their previous fellows "wrong."

It's so easy to see that morality is subjective, even among your fellow believers. You'd probably hoped I was blind to this fact, or wouldn't think to point it out. From my perspective you can provide no good excuse for this type of separation and disparity. It is sound proof that needs no interpretation. You "know" no better than anyone else.

 

[omega2xx]

So how do you know he exists when you have no proof?

What is your existence of god based on if nothing is proof of his existence?

There is proof. It just isn't verifiable proof to some====In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If God didn't do it, how did it get here?

 

[omega2xx]

And this, right here proves to me an error in your thinking. I became vegan due to the unnecessary and unethical treatment of animals raised for food. For me, veganism is ALL about my code of morality.

If that is your moral code, you don't really have one. The people of India will not kill the rats that eat the grain they need for food, and their children starve. Is that moral.

If we didn't kill the animals we eat for food, we would soon be overrun with animals seating our food and we would starve. Is it really bad to kill a cockroach? It is wrong to kill what has no soul?

I know that you don't know yours is "right" any better than I know mine is. Want to know how I know this? Because even within the ranks or your Abrahamic faith - regardless what you practice - I know that there are various sects having splintered off due to many differences - some of those having to do with what some persons or group felt was "right" or "wrong" in the practices/behavior of their "bretheren." So you see, even the picture of morality from "God" is apparently open to interpretation or addendum. One group feels dancing is the work of the devil, and prohibits it. Another congregation feels that consuming alcohol leads to sin and ruin, and so discourages that, or even breaks off to form their own church, calling their previous fellows "wrong."

That is one reason God gave us the Bible. The Bible doesn't say drinking alcohol is a sin, so it isn't.

It's so easy to see that morality is subjective, even among your fellow believers. You'd probably hoped I was blind to this fact, or wouldn't think to point it out. From my perspective you can provide no good excuse for this type of separation and disparity. It is sound proof that needs no interpretation. You "know" no better than anyone else.

It is not subjective according to the Bible. Don't blame the Bible for man not understanding it and making up their own rules. I know the Bible better than many, and what God considers sin is not hard to understand. Those who say drinking alcohol is a sin are adding to God's word and that is prohibited.

 

[Darkstorn]

And what you believe about the existence of God is also just your opinion.

I am aware of that. Hence why i'm not arguing for the existence or non-existence of god(s.)

My belief that God exist is not my opinion, it is my belief.

I was directly replying to a comment where you say "IMO" which is short for "in my opinion." I was just following your own words.

My evidence is the creation. My reason for believing it points to a Creator, is because nothing can't be the cause of something.

"Personal evidence" is not actual evidence though. You can fully consider your belief valid and correct; But it's factually incorrect to pretend that it's actual evidence of any kind. Except for that you have an opinion or a belief of some sort.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am simply giving some of the reasons why I do.

I'm not arguing you because of this at all though. I was arguing with you because you used the term "proof" wrong. After that, you used the term "evidence" wrong. I was merely pointing out a factual error in your post. Nothing else. Anything else, is your addition.

If you think it was factually incorrect, that's fine with me.

Good. That was the entire point of my post.

Because all of your comments point to you not believing in the existence of God. If I have misread you, I'm sorry.

You have misread me. None of my comments point out to that. You're only thinking that because i'm arguing with you. However i was only arguing your comments, not your beliefs. You cannot make such judgments of my posts.

Have I ask you to believe anything?

No. But you directly did claim that i believe in nothing.

When you said you try t do no harem, that sounds like a moral concept to me.

... And i was using it as a reasoning as to why a moral concept can be cause for veganism. It's a decision. You can base your decisions on ANYTHING you wish. Even belief. As you have done. Why not moral codes? Or rational thought?

Why do you think it is immoral to kill and eat animals?

I never said anything to suggest anything of the sort. You are misreading again.

Since there is noting moral about animals, IMO becoming a vegan is not a moral concept.

... You are mistaking your subjective assessment for objective fact. It is your opinion that there is nothing moral about animals. Either way: I was talking about treatment of animals, not animals themselves so you're making a huge leap for an excuse to post some empty proselytizing again. I do consider mistreatment of living things, especially if they're conscious, and many animals are, a matter of morality. A psychopath probably wouldn't see it as a matter of morality.

You sure sound like one, but I will take your word for it.

You'll take my word for it, but make sure that i apparently "sound like one." How about this: I was trying to make a comment as objective as possible. I am not a vegan. But i can still talk about veganism. I think your way of thinking is overly simplistic, assumes a lot, and puts words into peoples' mouths.

If you remember I qualified that statement. They are not verifiable to non-Christians. I KNOW GOD EXISTS. It is intellectually lazy or intellectual pride that makes you think you are intelligent enough to know there is evidence that you don'[t accept because of you lack of understanding.

That statement needs to be proven somehow. And it needs to make more sense. And it needs to put less words into my mouth.

Seriously, what are you even saying? You are saying i think i'm intelligent enough to know that there is evidence that i don't accept because of my lack of understanding. What does that even mean?

You accept that evolution has been proved and you certainly don't have any scientific evidence to support that guess. Proof is not dependent on if it is believed.

Firstly, this statement is factually wrong on so many levels, i don't think it needs a rebuttal. It can be dismissed without evidence because it was made without evidence.

You say there is no scientific evidence to support evolution? And that it's a guess? Sure bud, i'm not even arguing for evolution here, so technically:

You are just once again putting words into my mouth. I never said a single thing about evolution. How do you get these leaps? Seriously. You're not trying very hard apparently.

Those who say drinking alcohol is a sin are adding to God's word and that is prohibited.

I have read the bible. And you saying that makes me believe you haven't. It actually says many things about alcohol.

Specifically, it both says it's good for you, AND that it's a sin, multiple times, on many separate contradicting instances. It actually says both: That it's a sin, and that it's not.

Here's some examples:

Ecclesiastes 9:7
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do.
Ephesians 5:18
18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

 

[omega2xx]

I am aware of that. Hence why i'm not arguing for the existence or non-existence of god(s.)

I was directly replying to a comment where you say "IMO" which is short for "in my opinion." I was just following your own words.

"Personal evidence" is not actual evidence though. You can fully consider your belief valid and correct; But it's factually incorrect to pretend that it's actual evidence of any kind. Except for that you have an opinion or a belief of some sort.

IMO unless you have a better explanation of how the universe came into being, the fact that it is here is the evidence I accept for the existence of God.

I'm not arguing you because of this at all though. I was arguing with you because you used the term "proof" wrong. After that, you used the term "evidence" wrong. I was merely pointing out a factual error in your post. Nothing else. Anything else, is your addition.

I am not using them wrong on your say so.

You have misread me. None of my comments point out to that. You're only thinking that because i'm arguing with you. However i was only arguing your comments, not your beliefs. You cannot make such judgments of my posts.<<

Yes I can. I may be wrong, but I can still make them.

No. But you directly did claim that i believe in nothing.

I did not. Everyone believe is something.

... And i was using it as a reasoning as to why a moral concept can be cause for veganism. It's a decision. You can base your decisions on ANYTHING you wish. Even belief. As you have done. Why not moral codes? Or rational thought?

Because you are setting your own personal standard with no evidence to support it.

I never said anything to suggest anything of the sort. You are misreading again.

Without a backquote I have no idea what you are referring to.

... You are mistaking your subjective assessment for objective fact.

And that is only your opinion. For one thing you don't know what I am basing my statement on.

It is your opinion that there is nothing moral about animals. Either way: I was talking about treatment of animals, not animals themselves so you're making a huge leap for an excuse to post some empty proselytizing again.

And it is only your opinion that animals are moral. You also need to get a good dictionary and look up the meaning of proselytizing.

I do consider mistreatment of living things, especially if they're conscio

The vegetables you eat are living things, why are they not also exempt from killing for food?

us, and many animals are, a matter of morality. A psychopath probably wouldn't see it as a matter of morality.

IMO only a psychopath would consider it a matter of morality not to kill them for food.

You'll take my word for it, but make sure that i apparently "sound like one." How about this: I was trying to make a comment as objective as possible. I am not a vegan. But i can still talk about veganism. I think your way of thinking is overly simplistic, assumes a lot, and puts words into peoples' mouths.

KISS. I think you method is far to complex, based on to much personal theology and puts words into my mouth.

That statement needs to be proven somehow. And it needs to make more sense. And it needs to put less words into my mouth.

Your 3 OPINIONS are noted and rejected.

Seriously, what are you even saying? You are saying i think i'm intelligent enough to know that there is evidence that i don't accept because of my lack of understanding. What does that even mean?

I have no idea what you are saying. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Shame on you.

Firstly, this statement is factually wrong on so many levels, i don't think it needs a rebuttal. It can be dismissed without evidence because it was made without evidence.

Take this personal, you are not qualified to be the final judge on what is factually wrong. You haven't proved anything you have said, so I will dismiss it all.

You say there is no scientific evidence to support evolution? And that it's a guess? Sure bud, i'm not even arguing for evolution here, so technically:

If you say it is a guess, then post one thing the TOE preaches that has been proven scientifically. You are the one guessing, not me.

You are just once again putting words into my mouth. I never said a single thing about evolution. How do you get these leaps? Seriously. You're not trying very hard apparently.

I am aware of that. Hence why i'm not arguing for the existence or non-existence of god(s.)



I was directly replying to a comment where you say "IMO" which is short for "in my opinion." I was just following your own words.



"Personal evidence" is not actual evidence though. You can fully consider your belief valid and correct; But it's factually incorrect to pretend that it's actual evidence of any kind. Except for that you have an opinion or a belief of some sort.



I'm not arguing you because of this at all though. I was arguing with you because you used the term "proof" wrong. After that, you used the term "evidence" wrong. I was merely pointing out a factual error in your post. Nothing else. Anything else, is your addition.



Good. That was the entire point of my post.



You have misread me. None of my comments point out to that. You're only thinking that because i'm arguing with you. However i was only arguing your comments, not your beliefs. You cannot make such judgments of my posts.



No. But you directly did claim that i believe in nothing.



... And i was using it as a reasoning as to why a moral concept can be cause for veganism. It's a decision. You can base your decisions on ANYTHING you wish. Even belief. As you have done. Why not moral codes? Or rational thought?



I never said anything to suggest anything of the sort. You are misreading again.



... You are mistaking your subjective assessment for objective fact. It is your opinion that there is nothing moral about animals. Either way: I was talking about treatment of animals, not animals themselves so you're making a huge leap for an excuse to post some empty proselytizing again. I do consider mistreatment of living things, especially if they're conscious, and many animals are, a matter of morality. A psychopath probably wouldn't see it as a matter of morality.



You'll take my word for it, but make sure that i apparently "sound like one." How about this: I was trying to make a comment as objective as possible. I am not a vegan. But i can still talk about veganism. I think your way of thinking is overly simplistic, assumes a lot, and puts words into peoples' mouths.



That statement needs to be proven somehow. And it needs to make more sense. And it needs to put less words into my mouth.

Seriously, what are you even saying? You are saying i think i'm intelligent enough to know that there is evidence that i don't accept because of my lack of understanding. What does that even mean?



Firstly, this statement is factually wrong on so many levels, i don't think it needs a rebuttal. It can be dismissed without evidence because it was made without evidence.

You say there is no scientific evidence to support evolution? And that it's a guess? Sure bud, i'm not even arguing for evolution here, so technically:

You are just once again putting words into my mouth. I never said a single thing about evolution. How do you get these leaps? Seriously. You're not trying very hard apparently.

I have read the bible. And you saying that makes me believe you haven't. It actually says many things about alcohol.

Specifically, it both says it's good for you, AND that it's a sin, multiple times, on many separate contradicting instances. It actually says both: That it's a sin, and that it's not.

Here's some examples:

Ecclesiastes 9:7
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do.
Ephesians 5:18
18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

You may have read d it but you certainly do not understand it. if you are saying the Bible forbids drinking.

Eccl says drinking is not a sin. Eph said drinking is not sin but getting drunk is.

I know my post is a mess. I hit the wrong key and had to go back and start in the middle. Hope you can understand most of it.

 

[Darkstorn]

IMO unless you have a better explanation of how the universe came into being, the fact that it is here is the evidence I accept for the existence of God.

That's not evidence. Lack of evidence for view A does not automagically prove view B. Me not giving you evidence for the non-existence of god, is not evidence for there being one either.

But i was never arguing about any of that. You are still putting words into my mouth and completely misreading what i'm saying. I am not arguing about that at all.

I am not using them wrong on your say so.

I base my claim on your own words. I'm using that as proof. Your posts, and my responses to them explain as to why i think what i think.

I know my post is a mess. I hit the wrong key and had to go back and start in the middle. Hope you can understand most of it.

I can "understand" it in the capacity that i can read it. However, you made it completely unquotable. I can't properly quote and reply to it. But i don't really feel the need to either. You seem very irrational.

You're literally replacing what i say with something you're imagining that i'm saying. But i'm clearly not saying the things you are claiming, and my posts stand as proof for this. I never talked about me having any trouble eating animals for example. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said it's wrong either. I NEVER gave you MY opinion about it other than this:

I am not a vegan. That should already tell you enough. IF i had real moralistic problems killing or eating animals, why am i eating them? Hm? I'm just understanding this: Morality is not objective. It's subjective. People have different moral compasses. You're evidence of this.

You make claims that intentional mistreatment of animals is not a matter of morality. I say the OBJECT of mistreatment doesn't matter. If you're purposefully mistreating something, you are mistreating something. It's as simple as that. It won't change the meaning of the word "mistreatment" which implies purposeful malice.

I don't ever see purposeful malice as morally justifiable unless your moral compass is very different from mine. Hence: Morals are subjective. I know you're going to make the claim that they aren't: That you know the objective morals etc. Sure, fine, go ahead.

I'm not actually planning on replying to you anymore. Most of your argument is simply adding stuff to my comments that was never there to begin with, then answering that instead of what i actually wrote. I also think your own posts are proof of you being incapable of making a rational argument. Just my opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is proof. It just isn't verifiable proof to some====In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If God didn't do it, how did it get here?

Why does it matter?

We're here. Live for today.

 

[Willamena]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

Because it's silly.

It's not possible, no.

 

[omega2xx]

That's not evidence. Lack of evidence for view A does not automagically prove view B. Me not giving you evidence for the non-existence of god, is not evidence for there being one either.

Not only is it evidence, it is a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

But i was never arguing about any of that. You are still putting words into my mouth and completely misreading what i'm saying. I am not arguing about that at all.

I am not putting words in your mouth by stating what I believe.

I base my claim on your own words. I'm using that as proof. Your posts, and my responses to them explain as to why i think what i think.

You are basing your claim on your misunderstanding of what I say.

I can "understand" it in the capacity that i can read it. However, you made it completely unquotable. I can't properly quote and reply to it. But i don't really feel the need to either. You seem very irrational.

I seem irrational because you are irrational. It is irrational to continuing discussing a subject with an irrational person.

]You're literally replacing what i say with something you're imagining that i'm saying. But i'm clearly not saying the things you are claiming, and my posts stand as proof for this. I never talked about me having any trouble eating animals for example. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said it's wrong either. I NEVER gave you MY opinion about it other than this:

YAWN

I am not a vegan. That should already tell you enough. IF i had real moralistic problems killing or eating animals, why am i eating them? Hm? I'm just understanding this: Morality is not objective. It's subjective. People have different moral compasses. You're evidence of this

Morality is not subjective and people having different moral compasses means one or both are wrong.

You make claims that intentional mistreatment of animals is not a matter of morality. I say the OBJECT of mistreatment doesn't matter. If you're purposefully mistreating something, you are mistreating something. It's as simple as that. It won't change the meaning of the word "mistreatment" which implies purposeful malice.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Shame on you.

I don't ever see purposeful malice as morally justifiable unless your moral compass is very different from mine. Hence: Morals are subjective. I know you're going to make the claim that they aren't: That you know the objective morals etc. Sure, fine, go ahead.

Is "You shall not murder" subjective?

I'm not actually planning on replying to you anymore. Most of your argument is simply adding stuff to my comments that was never there to begin with, then answering that instead of what i actually wrote. I also think your own posts are proof of you being incapable of making a rational argument. Just my opinion.

Good. Have a + day

 

[omega2xx]

Why does it matter?

We're here. Live for today.

If the Bible is correct, and it is, live for tomorrow, live for eternity.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If that is your moral code, you don't really have one. The people of India will not kill the rats that eat the grain they need for food, and their children starve. Is that moral.

If we didn't kill the animals we eat for food, we would soon be overrun with animals seating our food and we would starve. Is it really bad to kill a cockroach? It is wrong to kill what has no soul?

And here we go with the "animals are put here for our use." argument. It is extremely tiresome to try and debate this subject with someone as arrogant as I now have to assume you are, and with type of mental block I have to assume you have. I will only say that if you TRULY have to eat an animal in order not to starve or to protect yourself or the property that helps you mete out that survival, then fine, go right ahead. There is no moral issue large enough to overshadow such needs. But when the pain, suffering, or killing of the animal is unnecessary? There IS a moral issue there... don't kid yourself.

That is one reason God gave us the Bible. The Bible doesn't say drinking alcohol is a sin, so it isn't.

However The Bible does say to keep away from even "the appearance" of evil. How is this not up for INTERPRETATION? Say something like that, and you'll have people thinking alcohol is evil, that sex is evil, that animals like flies and mosquitos and bats are "evil." It's asinine, and you believers are given a "free pass" to believe that anything you want to label "evil" is evil... because of that one, entirely ambiguous statement. Again, you can provide me no acceptable excuse for it.

It is not subjective according to the Bible. Don't blame the Bible for man not understanding it and making up their own rules. I know the Bible better than many, and what God considers sin is not hard to understand. Those who say drinking alcohol is a sin are adding to God's word and that is prohibited.

I have just displayed that it is up for interpretation. The Bible gives man license to make up his own rules... and it happens all the time. Just ask yourself - do you believe yourself the aithority on what The Bible does and does not prescribe with respect to codes of morality? If so, then why don't all your Abrahamic brethren believe the same as you do? Why don't they all look to YOU for essential interpretation of the text?

 

[ChristineM]

As a recovering atheist , I think deep down I just liked atheism better than theism- it offered (I thought) a simpler and more comfortable model of reality for me. I was taught that atheism was more 'intellectually sophisticated' and I was guilty of believing this

Most of all, by definition, a-theism teaches you to scrutinize every belief other than your own, to even refuse to acknowledge your own belief as such- and that makes it particularly difficult to escape

Atheism teaches no such thing. Although atheists in general will consider a theme before forming an opinion which is why most have considered the god concept and rejected it on absolute lack of evidence.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Any other belief an atheist holds is irrelevant to the term atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no proof that God does not exist. SHRUG

Been there and shown you several proofs.

However, ignoring that and taking the wording of your post here.

There is absolutely no proof that God does exist.

 

[ChristineM]

If the Bible is correct, and it is, live for tomorrow, live for eternity.

You have evidence of this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If the Bible is correct, and it is, live for tomorrow, live for eternity.

Logically, why is living for tomorrow better than living for today?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

why atheists attack on the idea of an intelligent creator? isn't it possible that an intelligent creator might exist? most atheists act like this is absurd.

Who gets to define "intelligence", though? My dogs think I'm a genius just for opening a door using a doorknob while I am routinely outdone by squirrels, LOL.

This is interesting, because perspectives like this strike me as a consequence of not having an animistic worldview. For the animist, there is no "mindless matter," the word "person" does not necessarily mean "human," and "intelligence/sentience" (if one uses those terms) is an attribute granted to a much wider variety of things in our world.

Indeed. I catch myself calling nonhumans 'people' as well, because I feel the term applies to all sentient beings and it's species-ist to assume only humans can be persons.

The words "creator" and "intelligent" seem to always come together as a package, for some reason. But a cursory look at how things have been created, if they have been created, casts serious doubt on the creator's competence, under the assuption of omnipotence.

I agree that it doesn't follow logically and neither does "if a creator, then creation has purpose". God could just have thrown His soda out the car window one day and the universe is what grew in the black Coca-Cola and never gave another thought about it.

Jesus will relieve mankind of distresses.

He didn't accomplish it the first time, so what evidence do we have from his work history that he can accomplish it now?

I do consider mistreatment of living things, especially if they're conscious, and many animals are, a matter of morality.

Indeed. I'm not vegan, but animal abuse in whatever context is not okay. I'm against farms and ranches that don't care for their animals properly.

If I had my druthers, we'd just offer meat from animals who died of old age. Maybe we'll perfect 3D printing of meat. I know it's in development.

And here we go with the "animals are put here for our use." argument. It is extremely tiresome to try and debate this subject with someone as arrogant as I now have to assume you are, and with type of mental block I have to assume you have.

It's also ridiculous. Genesis may say mankind is to "dominate" or whatever the planet and its inhabitants, but when you see what Adam was "hired" to do, it's essentially to categorize and clean up the poop, LOL. Animals already do a better job at doing whatever cleanup their ecological niche demands. We are superfluous.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, that's all well and good, but what's real to you, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. You're drawing conclusions from an unsubstantiated premise.
And what does Psalms have anything to do with reality?

To me the reality is that as ' Psalms 46:9 ' says that God is bringing an end to wars throughout the Earth.......
So, the reality is that God's choice is that Jesus, as King of God's Kingdom, will usher in Peace on Earth.
Today's ' New Normal ' is as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 with conditions going from bad to worse.
To me, world conditions are ' real ' thus showing that scriptural fulfillment is also real.