Two things:surjulz said:I think God is on the side of the poor though, there are a lot of verses in the bible about it. But the bible makes clear that God did hold the wealthy to account to the way they treated the poor in the old testement. I suppose on a conceptual level the reason strict rawlsianism isn't necesary is that God answering one persons prayers would detract from his ability to amswer other prayers if I can put it that way...
I wouldn't take a marco view of poverty as firm evidence against what I wrote earlier with regard to the figures stated yes they are large numbers, but by getting the food, drugs and aid into those countries, we can lift a lot of people out of poverty. And compared to 10-11 years ago the general attitude of the powerbrokers with regards aid is changing, for all of its contraversies the bush administration has increased aid 4 fold during its time. Although more needs to be done still...
(1) Bible verses don't really stand up against the actual state of the world. What is in question here is, partly, what is claimed in the bible regarding god (or perhaps what people think is claimed). Therefore you can't really turn to the bible to make your case without begging the question. As I have argued, the state of the world does not seem consistent with the existence of a god who is a) benevolent and b) intervenes with miracles on the behalf of the poor. And sure, I agree that omnipotence would allow god to answer as many prayers as necessary but, as I will argue below, this does not appear to be happening.
(2) The difficulty for you is that god always exists, is perhaps a necessary existant, and has unlimited power/knowledge/wisdom/etc. Thus it is enough to show that things are (unnecessarily) worse for the poor at one time rather than another in order to falsify the idea of a (benevolent) god who intervenes on the behalf of the destitute. You really have to make your claims across all times if you want to guard yourself from such objections. Certainly, it appears as though some progress may come in the future (with respect to poverty, diseases, etc... though I'm not super optimistic) but it is still the case that things have been terrible for certain populations around the world (and indeed, continue to be for others). You can't avoid these problems by simply claiming 'things are getting better' because god, if existant, exists at all times and with the capacity to intervene for the better (that is, if god is a miracle giver). Unless you can prove that this is the best of all possible worlds (good luck) then either a) god does not perform miracles or b) god's moral sense strikes me, personally, as questionable.