We could probably keep things in the intersubjective sphere they likely actually reside in and say that the are unfavorable or unpreferred to us.

I kind of have an issue with the naturalist arguments. They miss their own biases. I've done this several times; ask someone if a beaver's damn or a birds nest is nature. Most people say yes, and will sometimes say that these animals use things from nature to build such structures. Well, so do humans, so if those structures are natural or part of nature then so is the automobile. We [humans] don't create "unnatural things" from nothing, we use what the planet has provided for us, and that goes for what we create that is both organic and inorganic. The problem is how we as creatures try so hard to separate ourselves from other animals purely because of the appearance of our sentience, as if that magically removes us from nature. Now if someone wants to be specific and say things to the effect of "not human made" or "not altered by human acts" (which are few things at this point; we have our hands on as much as we can), then that's different, because yes, we do and create many things that screw us over, but that too may be part of our nature.

Also, nature tends to sort itself out and I think that it shows our hubris when we say something is unnatural or goes against nature. As if we wee little beings have the actual capacity to dictate and control the nature that we are also a part of.

To the topic, if God exists, and God is the purveying creator, then God created sin.

One love