God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

Hi, Greatest I Am. I find this to be an interesting statement.If I believe in a God, I believe in one that is not completely omnipotent. Therefore, said God has resource limitations. Such a God would have to decide how to divy up His resources among His creations.Would the fact that He chose to give His miracles to somebody else still make Him immoral?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Greatest I Am, So? You can form your own opinion on that. You probably will anyway. My statement was only to illustrate that there are still alternative explanations for God's withholding of miracles. That's the reason you'll never convince anyone who wants to believe in a benevolent God that no such thing exists.-----But, you didn't answer my question:

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bailey. I think he did deal with it in the OP: The part about "sinning" is obviously subjective and difficult to support without defining it. But, if GIAm is including "children starving" as evil, it's fairly apparent that God is either not dealing with this issue by either miraculous or mundane means, or is dealing with it in an incompetent or sadistic way.Since GIAm appears to be assuming an omnipotent God who has the power to save these children from starving, we have to grant to him that this God is, indeed, withholding his services from these poor children.Of course, the God alternative I proposed here is an example of your objection, so I'm mostly on your side here.-----Perhaps we are going about this all the wrong way: maybe we should be asking GIAm to just give us the answer. He should know it, because he is the "Greatest I Am," after all. Moral: don't ridicule God if your screen name is "God." Unless, of course, you are able to ascertain that nobody you blog with is observant enough to make the obvious joke.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.