Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores.

[Diogenes]

Most of the arguments against the idea of a loving god who created the planet Earth and its creatures are so obvious they occur to a child. One of them is, 'Why would a caring, loving god create a world where so many organisms can only survive only by killing and eating others? Christians usually fall back on the old "Original Sin" argument, that everything was perfect until "The Fall."

Is "The Fall" a reasonable argument to explain the existence of God-created organisms that can only survive by tearing the flesh off other organisms? . . . or by consuming and torturing them to death like brainless cancer cells, viruses and bacteria?

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

[alexxcJRO]

@alexxcJRO

You said: "Term Evil is just a term."
___________________________

"Jew" & "Antisemite" are just terms, too?

Calling oneself a "Jew" places you higher than all that is in heaven & on earth.

Being called an "Antisemite" will cost you your career, life savings, & reputation.

#

Let's not pretend that God is running this world, shall we?

"Jew" & "Antisemite" are just terms, too yes.
Some humans have delusions of being superior then other humans and they act upon this delusion.
Being anti-Russia or anti-USA or anti-Romania is ok but being anti-Israel seems is not ok because who needs logic.
We are living in a kind of Idiocracy who seems to be getting worse as times goes by.

The God of the Bible is non-existent sir.

[311]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #111]

Certainly, though I disagree about you saying "he is anti-this" and "she is anti-that" is an okay thing to do.

God may not exist but virtue-signalers of all affiliations DO EXIST. They are the creators of all wars & civil unrest.

Jesus said we must "Deny Ourselves". Putting labels on ourselves (and others) is an act of slandering God's vision for us. This means we should let go of all the labels/slander we put on ourselves (and others) and just simply love our neighbor.

We have had 1000s of years of virtue-signalers (ie. Politicians) promising peace and still no peace.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #111]

Certainly, though I disagree about you saying "he is anti-this" and "she is anti-that" is an okay thing to do.

God may not exist but virtue-signalers of all affiliations DO EXIST. They are the creators of all wars & civil unrest.

Jesus said we must "Deny Ourselves". Putting labels on ourselves (and others) is an act of slandering God's vision for us. This means we should let go of all the labels/slander we put on ourselves (and others) and just simply love our neighbor.

We have had 1000s of years of virtue-signalers (ie. Politicians) promising peace and still no peace.

It is ok to be anti-anything/anti-anyone. It is ok to criticize anything and anyone no matter the who they are, what past they had.
USA has become a joke: a place of illiterate, malevolent, superficial not very bright Karens who fight each other no knowing who is more "virtuous" and "morally good".

[311]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #113]

You are are portraying yourself as God by saying that

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #113]

You are are portraying yourself as God by saying that

Worship me Sunny Boy!

[311]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #115]

H*tler was right about you darkies & beady-eye j*ws

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #109]

Then how are we humans supposed to know what is actually right/wrong, joyous/evil, moral/immoral?

Have a relationship with God and trust His wisdom.

I know, this is why you get to state -- ("we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision"). For which I stated -- ("What I'm saying is that if 'evil' was removed, we would always align with our "god given moral compass"). In which you stated you agree in post 103.

And then I asked how that supports P1 and you talked about your a, b, c of P2 instead.

And, once again, just showing something is unnecessary is not enough since some things that are unnecessary are still good (such as marriage).

This topic is not here to argue for what is 'gratuitously good', but instead, 'gratuitously evil'. If it were the former, you may have a point.

My point has been that it's your burden to show it is evil before talking about whether it is gratuituosly evil or not.

Predators still experience fear and suffering, first of all. I also didn’t claim there was a direct proportion of fear and joy. My alternative to your 3 options in P2 was that all feasible worlds (with free will and other goals God has) may be worlds with suffering.

But is the fear of predation necessary to achieve joy in any of them? If not, then isn't it, by logic, unnecessary?

It's your burden to show that there is a feasible world with the goals God has where the fear of predation is unnecessary and evil or you can't say only your 3 options exist.

Then I continue to miss it? Can animals experience theodicy? If so, prove it.

You have not established your trilemma as sound.

I beg to differ.

You seem to be saying human suffering can conceivably be met by theodicy (a, b, c), but not non-human animal suffering, right? I'm not saying the same move works for non-human animals; I'm saying that it's unnecessary because suffering in itself has not been shown to be evil. That's my answer.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #110]

There is a contradiction between a supposed omni God that is super loving, caring, personal yet we see he does not care for his created creatures for they suffer immensely yet he does not bother to help.

To rationally support this, you've got to show that suffering is evil and that the cost to end any evil suffering is not too much.

We have been over this already:
Analogy does not work for good things exist in Heaven. Not all good things exist in Heaven.
We have some good things that do not exist in Heaven vs zero suffering exists in Heaven.

It does follow that there might be a problem with suffering as part of a blissful existence.

But you seem to be saying the analogy doesn't work by assuming suffering is evil, which I'm questioning. That's what I need you to rationally support instead of just assert to change my view on the matter.

Q: If suffering is such an integral part of existence why does none exist in Heaven?

Marriage is an integral part of existence, but it doesn't exist in Heaven because it's part of the preparation of something else.

[POI]

Have a relationship with God and trust His wisdom.

This addresses (P1):

Is there any 'moral' assessment(s) for which all humans "intrinsically know" (is/are) <good/evil>, without having to also additionally apply trust in the requested specific "god of the Bible"?

x) If so, then wouldn't (needless or unnecessary suffering - which misses the mark or objective), qualify as one of them for assessing as <good vs. evil>? If not, why not?

y) If not, then god has no logical right to hold humans accountable for their action(s). Why? Since we have no "intrinsic ability" to evaluate <good vs. evil>, it would be illogical to punish humans for making an unwanted or incorrect choice, from the Bible god's perspective, such as being told to "trust the Bible god", and for the human to reject the request.

And then I asked how that supports P1 and you talked about your a, b, c of P2 instead.

Addressing (P2):

'Theodicy', in its varying forms in <a), b), and c)>, which also includes 'free will', (is/are) the reason(s) 'evil' is said to be permitted here on earth. Animals, however, do not appear to quality in obtaining/achieving any of these wanted goals. Hence, their suffering is pointless. When a human suffers pointlessly, we humans attempt to aid in reducing or eliminating their pointless suffering. The same goes for animals. Well, animals fearing of, or actually being the recipient of predation, looks to be pointless/unnecessary, as it relates to the objective(s). And since (pointless/unnecessary) suffering in humans would be deemed "bad" for humans, it would logically follow that (pointless/unnecessary) suffering in animals would also be deemed 'bad'. Also see my response directly below about the topic of marriage, -- (in which you volunteered), vs. the topic of suffering.

My point has been that it's your burden to show it is evil before talking about whether it is gratuituosly evil or not.

My argument is not that all suffering is bad, but instead that suffering, <which does not align with or fulfill the Bible god's goal(s)>, is 'bad'. Case/point:

If a marriage takes place but does not fulfill the intended objective(s)/goal(s), it would be deemed 'bad.' There are marriages which align with the objective(s), and there are marriages that don't. The same can be said for the topic of animal suffering. Just like there are reason(s)/objective(s) for marriage, there are also reason(s)/objective(s) for suffering.

It's your burden to show that there is a feasible world with the goals God has where the fear of predation is unnecessary and evil or you can't say only your 3 options exist.

No, it is your burden to demonstrate why (fear of predation) is necessary to achieve god's goal(s). And you haven't. I have instead shown why it is certainly not necessary at all.

Then I continue to miss it? Can animals experience theodicy? If so, prove it.

You have not established your trilemma as sound.

I beg to differ.

You seem to be saying human suffering can conceivably be met by theodicy (a, b, c), but not non-human animal suffering, right? I'm not saying the same move works for non-human animals; I'm saying that it's unnecessary because suffering in itself has not been shown to be evil. That's my answer.

This answer does not address my repeated question above in bold red.

***********************

As to your response here, I addressed it above.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #118]

See post 119.