Ramshutu’s Razor

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 315
#61
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re making a major logical error in your response here. Your issue appears to be divorcing itself from the realities.


So you feel you have an objective mechanism of measuring good, bad, evil. Etc. You believe that is based upon Gods revelation.



Whether God exists or not, you are still posting on this forum that you have a method of objectively determining good, bad and better.
I have a way of making sense of morality which I claim you do not unless you first presuppose God. I invite you to make sense of why your morals are or can be "Better" than anyone else without first identifying a fixed, universal, unchanging standard. Can you do that? If not, I am justified in saying you can't make sense of why your subjective moral opinions are and "Betgter" than anyone else. 


So; if your god exists, your mechanism is objective, and I should never be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better: because this universe I must already be the best.
Again, as I explained in my last post, don't confuse the "universe" with morality. Morality is a conscious qualitative value. The universe is a physical state; morality is a mental state. Best in quantitative values can be measured physically. How do you measure moral values? What is the measure you use? If it is a subjective, limited, and changing system of measure then why it better? Better is a comparative measure. What is your best, the standard that measures better? Is it something you arbitrarily makeup or is it fixed? Please answer my questions so we can 1) discover and 2) resolve.

You can apply the standard to a universe you make up if you like. that is up to you. 

You are misunderstanding why the universe is the way it is by neglecting the Fall. Until you understand what the Bible describes as happening you can't justify your charges against God. You apparently skip over them in your focus. 


if your Or doesn’t exist, your mechanism is not objective, and I would be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better; because everything is arbitrary.
If God did not exist and we are a byproduct of a change meaningless universe then morality is just a game we play in which nothing matters in the long term. There is no justice, just some arbitrary rules we make up to protect ourselves for no ultimate reasons other than to survive a little longer,  and if these changing rules are disregarded and we die - so what? What does it all mean? Yet, here you are, looking for meaning, arguing for meaning, and charging a God who you believe does not exist with not having the best standard but you want to make up an arbitrary one and CALL it better. Go figure?

So even if EVERYTHING you say about arbitrary and objective mechanisms for measuring good, bad and better - the only universe in which I could postulate a universe that is better - is one where your god doesn’t exist.

Just because you can think this it does not make it so. If you want to live in your dreamland and ignore reality then that is up to you. If you want to make sense of morality you need an ultimate, objective, unchanging/fixed, universal, and eternal standard of measure, a fixed reference point. All I can hope from a relative, limited mind, such as yours or mine is a shifting reference point. Demonstrate otherwise. Make sense of why what you believe should be the standard everyone else SHOULD live by. Go ahead. I have been waiting for three posts now. 
#62
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Ramshutu

you guys are assuming a perfect world is best. why can't an imperfect world that we are saved from be best?  think of a movie with a plot of drama that is overcome. we are arguing that a plot that overcomes a hurdle and ends with "and they lived happily ever after" is best. you guys are arguing that "and they lived happily" is best. i see no reason to assume your world view is best. from a worldly stand point, it's somewhat compelling, but i would have to fall back on all the arguments that PGA is making much better than i could do.  we have reasons to believe in God, so it makes sense to think there's a purpose behind it all and not just a bunch of meaningless cause and effect things happening. that's why it's better to go with "and they lived happily ever after" instead of "and they lived happily". 
#63
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Ramshutu
What if God did not desire a perfectly ordered Universe? Perhaps he desired inefficiency within it so as to confer it with diversity of action, outcome, experience, and composition of life and natural formations? I mean, if God Himself is perfect order, wouldn't He want something different from himself to exist?
Topic's author
#64
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
A perfect world is best: the definition of perfect in this context is one that most and best fulfills the specific goals God has.

The universe may not meet our criteria for perfection, but unless your willing to argue that God did a sloppy Job and could do better, it should be perfect by his definition; no?
Topic's author
#65
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Swagnarok
As I just said to N8garmi - I’m not arguing that the universe is perfect by our standards, or “perfectly ordered”, but that it is the best configuration of the universe for meeting Gods goals

Your free to posit that imperfection as we know it fulfills a purpose; but that can’t be true if a different l configuration of the universe better meets the criteria for that purpose.

#66
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality is God.

You can be certain that God isn't whatever you imagine or can conceive God to be.

Amd this is what we have always taught, so don't presume to understand our religion. 
Topic's author
#67
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
As I outlined and explained, your argument is illogical and circular.

I am able to disprove your god by showing that the properties of the universe could be changed to better match his desire and intent.

By all means, as I’ve said for dozens of posts nonsense - feel free to correct those broad desires and intent where I spelled them out.


If you are not able to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong, whilst you continue to repeatedly and vociferously assert how wrong I am : the only logical conclusion is that I’m actually paraphrasing your religion and God quite accurately - and as you know I’m broadly correct, you’re only left with the ability to wildly assert how wrong I am, as you are doing here.

#68
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Actually, the fact that you think you can disprove that the ultimate reality's existence is illogical.


See, I'm not answering you according to your folly, then I will be as foolish as you. No, I am pointing out the root of your folly. Your argument is stupid. You should abandon it.





#69
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If you are not able to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong, whilst you continue to repeatedly and vociferously assert how wrong I am : the only logical conclusion is that I’m actually paraphrasing your religion and God quite accurately - and as you know I’m broadly correct, you’re only left with the ability to wildly assert how wrong I am, as you are doing here.

This is the type of haughty and foolish reasoning that allowed you to come up with Ramshitu's razor to begin with. You are unjustifiably smug for somone who has no ground to stand on.



Topic's author
#70
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
What’s foolish about asking the person who has repeatedly told you how wrong you are exactly what you are wrong about?

It strikes me that this is reasonable and logical.


so I ask again: I outlined 3 general points in maybe my second posy - which one of them are wrong with respect to your Gods goals and intent?


#71
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
if it's any consolation, as a theist, even i find mopac's rants about the ultimate reality to be circular. i wouldn't even engage that sort of fluff after a post or two. 
#72
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Everything is wrong because you are speaking about things you don't understand.


I see nothing but nonsense and superstition.

Topic's author
#73
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
Actually, the fact that you think you can disprove that the ultimate reality's existence is illogical.
If you’re an irrational and illogical fool who believes what he believes because of faulty reasoning and ignorance - then I would be able to prove your god illogical.

If you’re not, and you believe in a valid God that exists for real - then I can’t.



So I would not be proving a real god doesn’t exist - only your fake Hod.


This is presumably why you’re trying to shield your God from any logical scrutiny - you know how illogical it is.
Topic's author
#74
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
then explain what I got wrong



right now you’re just making post after post repeatedly opining at how wrong I am - no posts explaining exactly why I am wrong.

Topic's author
#75
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
You always need to keep scrutinizing. If you don’t, you run the risk that you’re more like him, than a reasonable rational human.
#76
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
So the issue is that you seem to be arbitrarily mixing and matching my opinion, and the presuppositions of an argument. It appears to that you believe that I as an Atheist are unable to pressupose that morality, for example, is objective and that my judgement is subjective whilst you also argue that you; sitting in the same universe that operates by the same rules don’t have the same problem.
You're doing a good job of mixing and matching them yourself. You, as I have explained, are confusing your measures, a qualitative with a quantitative measure. They have different standards for verification. One can be seen, the other can't. One has to be understood other than by sight. 

The standard you adopt without God would have to be atheistic (in the sense that you deny God exists or ignore His existence and live life by ignoring Him), IMO.

If you are an atheist, I invite you again, to demonstrate you have an objective and unchanging standard. Perhaps we should clarify what we mean by objective? I'm using it in the sense of objective versus subjective. "Subjective" is personal opinion, interpretation, even emotions. "Objective" is fact-based and is what IS whether you agree or not.

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one is there to witness it? 

Now, if two different cultures believe opposites concerning a moral value which is the true value? The Law of Identity (A=A) states that it is logically inconsistent to say that the identity of A is B. 


So, as I pointed out: religions are normally very clear on what God wants or doesn’t, what is general desire and aims are with the universe. free will, faith, etc: we can presuppose some aspects of those can be justified with the universe.
So, you are taking a quantitative value, the universe, and mixing it with a qualitative value, goodness. They are measured and justified separately. One is done through sight; the other through mental processes. The question becomes why your or some other subjective mental process should be the measure when it can be demonstrated that such limited human mental processes are changing and finite. History is replete with these shifting human standards. One person's good is another person's evil. Hitler or Kim Jong-un have different qualitative standards than many in America. Within America itself there are many subcultures and individuals that disagree with the culture at large. It brings to mind which is right? Which is the true, the objective standard?


Now: the part of tour argument that makes no sense, is that its impossible for me to render a value judgement, even if I know the value your religio gives me. You’ve highlighted objective morality you hold, and the values by which you assess.
If you are incapable of doing this (see underlined) then what makes your values any better than mine or anyone else? You keep making these self-refuting and self-defeating statements. 

I have highlighted what is NECESSARY for objective morality. I have argued that without such values morality does not make sense. I have asked without such measurements for values why your beliefs are any better than any other belief? You keep talking around the central issue. Can you say that what you believe is better the Ten Commandments? And btw, Jesus summed up those Ten Commandments in two - love God and love your neighbour. 


The issue is that whilst I may have a hard time assessing whether Hitler is better than Stalin, I have no issues if I pressupose your moral and religious framework I’m assessing that Hitler is morally worse than Adam Sandler.
Both Hitler and Stalin were morally corrupt. So is every other person that is able to morally distinguish God's laws with the exception of the Person, Jesus Christ. He was without sin and you are with it. For instance, have you ever lied, have you ever been angry with your brother or a friend (Jesus likened this anger to murder), have you ever lusted after a woman who was not your wife (committed adultery mentally, not just physically), have you ever harboured impure sexual thoughts, have you ever stolen, have you ever coveted something that belongs to someone else, have you ever disrespected/mocked God, have you ever taken His name in vain, have you ever not given Him His just respect? Then you have done wrong. Thus, you see that the standard you live by does not meet His perfect standard. Hence, the need for a Redeemer, for One that has lived a perfectly just and moral life before God (not like Adam, or you, or me) and has also paid the penalty for your sins and on your behalf (death or separation from God for eternity). 

So Adam Sandler does not meet the moral standard either and is in the same boat as Hitler and Stalin - he bears his own guilt before God for breaking God's just standards. He either pays for his moral wrong on his own behalf or he accepts the free gift God has provided in His Son. That is the lesson from history. It showcases the moral corruption of humanity.  

#77
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
You have never spoken to me before, and you are speaking against me to the one who spits at your faith.

Something ain't right about that.



#78
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu

Sure, in an atheist framework, you could argue that neither could be argued as “better”.... but I’m not arguing from an Atheist Framework. I’m arguing from your own religious framework. I am adopting your rules and applying them to the universe.
No, you are not. You are mixing moral rules and reference points with physical rules and reference points and you are being inclusive about God's rules as applying to any God-believing religion. The biblical God is a specific God. If you want to argue with me about God I will only make my defence with the biblical God, so I invite you to get specific. 

"Better" in a moral sense speaks of a standard and measure that is not physical but mental. The universe is not a moral being (or you can argue it is if you are a pantheist or of an eastern religious persuasion - go ahead). You can also argue that everything is physical if you are an atheist. Go ahead if this is your persuasion. My religious standard/framework is the biblical God. I'll argue against any other god with you, but from a Christian framework, you will have to demonstrate you are applying those standards. I argue that you are not. I'm arguing that you misunderstand and misrepresent such a standard. UNTIL you can show otherwise the burden is on you since you have just made assertions about my religious viewpoint. 



In this case, if God abhors unnecessary suffering; a universe that minimizes unnecessary suffering is preferential by the standard religion sets for itself. At the same time - if God also wants suffering to lead to positive things, then we can also concurrently judge the world by that criteria too. Given that humans are also supposed to understand morality, and justice - on what basis can we not apply common accepted principles of morality and justice too.
Again, in the short term, does God have a purpose for suffering? Yes, He does. It highlights that there is a better way, a better life. Our earthly existence, since the Fall, has been riddled with pain and suffering for a purpose. That purpose is that some will come to seek a better way, a permanent solution and that some will find it. That is why God has provided the witness of history. It shows us that humanity, unaided by God cannot find a suitable solution.    


Is this point your not seeming to grasp. This is an assessment of the religious framework to asses the universe, rather than mine. There are many ways (as I’ve outlined) where we can indeed make a value judgement based upon them.
The point you are not grasping is that you have 1) not represented my Christian framework, and 2) that you can't provide a "better" one. I invite you to try without first smuggling in Christian moral values. Go ahead. This is the fourth or fifth time I will ask you. 

I have not read all your responses on this thread, so if you have a "better" value judgment than the Ten Commandments then please state it to me. I have not seen you list your moral judgment of "better" within the scope of our posts. Please do so, then we can discuss.

By all means feel free to explain how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem


Where do you see such an interpretation as humans being sexually attracted to little children as being condoned in the Bible???

I don't go by other religious views. If you want to charge the biblical God as being unjust and not existing then we will speak about such a God. I do not support any other gods so when you dialogue with me please understand we are speaking of a biblical framework. Where do you find the affirmative to pedophilia presented in the Bible?  

I do not see such a viewpoint as sexually harming little children as either morally permissible by humans or condoned in the Bible and I challenge you to provide the passages since you have made the charge. Yes, you stated it. 

If the biblical God takes an innocent human life (little children) He will restore it and to a better place. We, as limited humans are not capable of restoring to life someone who is dead and buried. 





#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You are not argiing against my God.

Irs really simple. I don't need to address your arguments against straw man false god idols.

Topic's author
#80
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
I am actually very much using your religious framework - you may not like that, but I’m effectively evaluating the religions self-consistency.

I have clearly elaborated on how it’s clearly possible to show some things are better than others in this context, and while it’s neat that you simply reject summarily my ability to use what the biblical says, does and wants: the precepts set out are fairly clear. I invite you, as I did Mopac to explain what elements ove
goggen wrong and why, 

You keep making a series of fundamental blunders, however such the clearly absurd notion that I am claiming that paedophilia is condoned by the Bible. How on earth did you get that?

I’m pointing out that if paedophilia wasn’t created - there’d be less unnecessary suffering of the innocent for little if any loss.

#81
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
i'm just meeting ram on his level, and telling him not to get hung up on bad arguments like your ultimate reality rant. you do have some brilliant points though, sometimes, don't get me wrong. 
#82
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
we've discussed the orthodox faith before, and i told you i have some strong affinity for that religion but didn't have enough of a reason to be orthodox. so we have exchanged ideas before. 
#83
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Your entire argument looks to me like "If I can imagine a better reality than the one we live in, God doesn't exist."

This is clearly loony toons

#84
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu

i think it boils down to you can't say your position is any better than anyone else, so why should we base our assumptions on an ideal that says everything has no greater meaning beyond what we ourselves impart? u assume things are cause and effect and basically pointless. if that's not true, then there must be a greater explanation.  maybe we are being punished by God in this reality, at least as argued by fundamentalists? i like to think there's a deeper meaning than punishment, but at least i can agree there's a deeper thing going on. 

here is a comical bit that explains why i reject your underlying premises....

"ATHEISM: the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."

#85
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
If it is not accepted that God is the Ultimate Reality, there is nothing else to discuss. This is the root of the atheist's superstition. We can't really talk about God meaningfully without this elephant in the room being addressed.

Once we accept that God must exist, then we can talk more about what God is and isn't. Then Christian theology such as The Trinity and the incarnation can be explained. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Those who are outside the church only get parables. Christianity is a mystery religion.









#86
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
God created the universe to exist.

And this is completed in the incarnation, because God's presence in creation gives it its existence. 


#87
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
What if there are multiple realities and this reality is exactly how it's suppose to be? It's like saying Iron Man 2 is better than 1 so... 1 doesn't exist. 

Than again, i define "god" a lot different than most religions. But in some religions, "god is everything," my above analogy holds bc they don't presuppose an all kind / evil god. In god world, evil and good don't exist. Which makes sense... how can they in an infinite being. Evil is a manifestation of fear of dying. Without that... you are just left in a blissful state of indifference. So, this reality would just be one of many creations and is exactly how it's suppose to be. At this point, god is smarter than humans... infinitely so, bc it would know exactly why everything is happening. 
#88
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
I am actually very much using your religious framework - you may not like that, but I’m effectively evaluating the religions self-consistency.
From your very first premise - "1.) Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe, and inherent properties (just, loving)). If a human can postulate a better universe that better matches those properties and fulfills those goals - that God does not exist" - 
how do you postulate a better universe without a universal, absolute, unchanging, fixed best reference point and what is that reference point? If you can't demonstrate how you do that then your premise is false. 


I have clearly elaborated on how it’s clearly possible to show some things are better than others in this context, and while it’s neat that you simply reject summarily my ability to use what the biblical says, does and wants: the precepts set out are fairly clear. I invite you, as I did Mopac to explain what elements ove
goggen wrong and why, 
I'm not following what you are saying. It seems I have to try and figure out what your words mean. What exactly are you saying and how have you elaborated better to me?

Again, what makes your subjective opinion regarding "better" actually better? Is it because you claim it so that it is better? Then what happens if I disagree? Which subjective opinion is the actual better then? Logically, if our opinions of better contradict then one has to be wrong since the Law of Identity is contravened. 


You keep making a series of fundamental blunders, however such the clearly absurd notion that I am claiming that paedophilia is condoned by the Bible. How on earth did you get that?
You said: "...how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem"

First, you question how you are misinterpreting the religious framework, then you want me to explain why some humans are attracted to children as if God is to blame. That is not a teaching of the Bible but a sin. God does not condone pedophilia. He condemns it just like He condemns any sin and punishes it. The problem is not God but humans who disobey and disrespect their Creator to do their own thing. 


I’m pointing out that if paedophilia wasn’t created - there’d be less unnecessary suffering of the innocent for little if any loss.

A pedophile is someone who disregards God's laws and commands and does evil in God's sight. God allows it for a time yet punishes all injustice at the judgment. 
#89
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Again; I don’t entirely know what planet you’re on: but the concept here is that if your God exists, I should not be able
to imagine a universe that better fulfills the goals attributed to him. If I can, that God cannot exists.
What makes you think this universe is the ultimate reality? God is the greater and perfect reality, not this universe. Your premise is faulty. You give an either-or proposition but you have excluded any third option.  The fault in thinking is that if God exists then you should not be able to imagine a better universe but this is fallacious on two fronts. First, how do you get to better in a qualitative sense without God and second, there is a logical reason that God has allowed sin and evil. It is so that something better and permanent may be realized by His creature and achieved through His grace. 


I’m not actually going to create a universe, and it doesn’t matter how much you irrationally scream that God is reality and so exists: if I can imagine better, your god isnt real.

How do you arrive at better? What is your standard for comparing "better?"
#90
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Please explain to me where, exactly, the logical flaw in the following argument is:

P1: If your God exists, the universe we see would be the best possible universe
P2: The universe is not the best possible universe
C: Your God doesn’t exist.
I question P1 as to the soundness of the statement. You assume there would be no other explanation that God would allow an imperfect universe, which was put in motion once Adam sinned for a particular reason.