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?'

[POI]

Many humans care about overall wellbeing; many care about their own wellbeing over the overall wellbeing. How does science tell us one desire is better than the other?

This sounds like you are flirting with the "god of the gaps" argument a bit, in that, if I cannot account for it, or, if we do not know yet or ever, then we must assume that only a "god" can account for telling us which one is actually "better". Is this what you are implying?

However, since you asked, here is what some of research states:

Science supports the prioritization of overall (collective) well-being over personal well-being by demonstrating that human welfare is interdependent, evolutionary prosociality boosts long-term happiness, and that individual health is unsustainable in a dysfunctional, unhealthy environment. Through fields like public health, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, science provides empirical evidence that acting for the greater good often results in better, more durable outcomes for the individual than pure self-interest.

Here is how science makes this case:

1). The Neurobiology of Prosocial Behavior

Studies in neuroscience indicate that when individuals engage in altruistic or generous behavior (prosociality), they activate brain circuits associated with reward, which are more enduring than those triggered by selfish gains.

Enduring Happiness: Acts of kindness and compassion activate brain regions that are more enduring than the fleeting pleasure of self-serving rewards, such as winning a prize.

Biological Benefits: People who behave altruistically often have lower levels of stress-related cortisol and better heart rate variability.

2). Evolutionary Biology and Cooperation

While early interpretations of evolution emphasized selfish, "mean" behavior, modern evolutionary biologists have found that, over the long run, "nice guys" or cooperative individuals often finish first.

Survival Value: Evolution has favored behaviors that benefit the group (prosocial behavior) because they create strong alliances, and provide safety and security.

Prosociality as Strategy: Prosociality is not just a moral ideal, but a selected, evolved strategy for survival.

3). The "Tragedy of the Commons" and Systemic Interdependence

Science shows that individual, self-interested action can destroy shared resources—the "tragedy of the commons"—leading to a decline in well-being for everyone.

Interconnectedness: Individual health is impossible without collective healing, as our physical well-being depends on the health of the environment, economy, and social systems.

Shared Fate: Data indicates that a thriving community supports individual prosperity, meaning prioritizing the collective is actually a form of "enlightened self-interest".

4). Psychological and Public Health Data

Psychological research into "identity vitality" suggests that a strong connection to one's community is associated with lower risks of depression and better overall health.

Lowering Chronic Stress: A strong sense of collective purpose can help individuals reframe stressful situations more productively, enhancing their own mental resilience.

Public Health Outcomes: Investing in the community (e.g., green spaces, bike lanes) is a proven way to improve population health metrics, reducing chronic disease for individuals.

5). Social Identity and Health

Research shows that how people understand themselves—specifically when they define themselves as part of a collective (social identity)—literally

Summary: Science does not typically tell us that one must prefer the collective, but rather that human beings are wired for, and benefit more from, a balance where the collective good is prioritized. This ensures the long-term, stable environment necessary for personal thriving.

Eating vanilla is bad for someone who is allergic because of the nature of vanilla interacting with that person, whether or not you state it. This was my other point, that just because God has an opinion about morality, that doesn’t tell us whether morality is subjective or objective.

Well, god states all of his creation is "good." And since he is the one to create the necessity for all animal predation, why IS all animal predation actually "good" -- (aside from his personal opinion on the matter)?

I think that is an objective truth claim that is wrong,

Why?

but I think a consistent atheist must say it is a subjective truth statement like their ice cream preferences.

Under your logic, neither can the theist. This is where I again have to bring in the "economics" topic - (for illustration proposes). Again, we have actual demonstrated creation for both physical money(s), as well as the creation of the finance system, and yet, the application is still not really truly 'objective.'

I was saying that people who say they are moral subjectivists (I don’t know if you say that about yourself or not) that treat moral preferences as unique among socio-biologically produced personal preferences, aren’t acting like moral subjectivists. I think there are very few consistent moral subjectivists. You seem like a moral objectivist to me; I’m not sure what you consider yourself.

Again, I see this as a distractor. Using the parallel example (again), is anyone really concerned with the absolute truthiness of actual absolute true "objectivity" when a person is found to commit a 'white-collar crime', for which is then arrested and convicted? If we have no <absolute> grounds to actually objectively prosecute/condemn them, is anyone raising this apparent grave concern? The answer here is usually 'no'. However, theists seem to do this quite often, when skeptics raise the "moral" or "illogical" concerns of their holy book(s). And viola, here we are... Me being asked (again), if I can actually ground a "moral" judgement.

I’m certainly capable of being inconsistent, but I’m not here.

Yes, you are. Refer to my explanation above, about economics.

Why do you think this passage is a literal scientific statement?

Because I read what it says. Hence, your assumption is false. It states that all breathing creation once ate plants. This is false. Please try again.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #161]

Many humans care about overall wellbeing; many care about their own wellbeing over the overall wellbeing. How does science tell us one desire is better than the other?

This sounds like you are flirting with the "god of the gaps" argument a bit, in that, if I cannot account for it, or, if we do not know yet or ever, then we must assume that only a "god" can account for telling us which one is actually "better". Is this what you are implying?

No, I didn’t imply that at all. My statement has nothing to do with God and, in fact, was assuming God didn’t exist to analyze your atheistic account for coherency.

Science supports the prioritization of overall (collective) well-being over personal well-being by demonstrating that human welfare is interdependent, evolutionary prosociality boosts long-term happiness, and that individual health is unsustainable in a dysfunctional, unhealthy environment. Through fields like public health, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology, science provides empirical evidence that acting for the greater good often results in better, more durable outcomes for the individual than pure self-interest.

So you are saying that humans should care about overall wellbeing over their own individual wellbeing because it’s better for their own individual wellbeing?

Well, god states all of his creation is "good." And since he is the one to create the necessity for all animal predation, why IS all animal predation actually "good" -- (aside from his personal opinion on the matter)?

If initial suffering is necessary for conscious beings, then the choices are (1) existence with suffering or (2) non-existence. Are you saying non-existence is the good option there?

Is the statement "animal predation is evil" a (subjective truth statement) or an (objective truth statement), and why?

I think that is an objective truth claim that is wrong,

Why?

You don’t call someone who likes a different ice cream flavor than you 'evil' for that. By saying animal predation is evil, you are saying it ought not to be whatever dissenting opinions exist on the subject. Therefore, the claim is being presented as objectively true. I've been sharing why I think it is wrong in that claim.

Under your logic, neither can the theist. This is where I again have to bring in the "economics" topic - (for illustration proposes). Again, we have actual demonstrated creation for both physical money(s), as well as the creation of the finance system, and yet, the application is still not really truly 'objective.'

My logic wasn’t just about humans being created so your illustration is irrelevant. My logic was about being created with moral agency (i.e., to care about and look out for the wellbeing of others). Animals do not have moral agency and so when a shark forcibly copulates with a mate, we don’t believe the shark is acting immorally.

Again, I see this as a distractor. Using the parallel example (again), is anyone really concerned with the absolute truthiness of actual absolute true "objectivity" when a person is found to commit a 'white-collar crime', for which is then arrested and convicted? If we have no <absolute> grounds to actually objectively prosecute/condemn them, is anyone raising this apparent grave concern? The answer here is usually 'no'. However, theists seem to do this quite often, when skeptics raise the "moral" or "illogical" concerns of their holy book(s). And viola, here we are... Me being asked (again), if I can actually ground a "moral" judgement.

If your critique of their holy book assumes the objectivity of morality, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to ground it from your worldview. That’s being rational. The rational person grounds it or gives up that premsie. You wouldn’t let theists just assume certain beliefs and you not be allowed to question them if those are the ones you disagree with.

Why do you think this passage is a literal scientific statement?

Because I read what it says. Hence, your assumption is false. It states that all breathing creation once ate plants. This is false. Please try again.

‘It means X because that’s what it says’ is assertion, not rational support. You have to talk about the original context, genre, etc.. It was not written in our modern context as a modern scientific claim. It is part of an ancient sacred myth.

[POI]

No, I didn’t imply that at all. My statement has nothing to do with God and, in fact, was assuming God didn’t exist to analyze your atheistic account for coherency.

Okay.

So you are saying that humans should care about overall wellbeing over their own individual wellbeing because it’s better for their own individual wellbeing?

I'm not saying anything. Science suggests humans are normatively "wired" this way, via biology.

If initial suffering is necessary for conscious beings, then the choices are (1) existence with suffering or (2) non-existence. Are you saying non-existence is the good option there?

Your (If) is doing some heavy lifting and does not yet bare consideration, as (Genesis 1:29-30) negates your given (if).

You don’t call someone who likes a different ice cream flavor than you 'evil' for that.

Correct, and I've already explained why that is. It's only deemed 'evil' if the observed action adversely effects the conscious agent's wellbeing. Again, preferring chocolate to vanilla, as the base/primmer for your hot fudge Sunday, may only be an 'amoral' preference.

By saying animal predation is evil, you are saying it ought not to be whatever dissenting opinions exist on the subject. Therefore, the claim is being presented as objectively true. I've been sharing why I think it is wrong in that claim.

Then please simply explain why allowing a known parasite to continue invading your pet is in line with your pet's wellbeing? If you cannot, then you can logically say the parasitic action is 'evil', and you get it removed. And I doubt parasite actively is even a thing in Heaven regardless, being that no 'evil' is allowed.

My logic wasn’t just about humans being created

In post 146, you stated "The act of creation is what grounds morality." But it clearly is not. I've exposed the flaw of this assertion/statement by citing creation, as it relates to economics alone.

My logic was about being created with moral agency (i.e., to care about and look out for the wellbeing of others).

Again, economics, and all of its created rulesets does not ground 'absolute objective morality', even though we can prove complete creation of the system.

Animals do not have moral agency

Are you saying all animals possess no moral agency, or, that the animals that do possess some moral agencies do not possess the same level of moral agency as a fully functioning human?

and so when a shark forcibly copulates with a mate, we don’t believe the shark is acting immorally.

I agree. Just like if a particular human is also deemed not fit for trial, or is an extreme minor, or other, the 'moral' thing to do would be 'containment' or other, as opposed to jail or capital punishment-- to secure the wellbeing of the rest of society in saving them from harm from the identified sentient agency who proves harmful to the wellbeing to the rest of society.

If your critique of their holy book assumes the objectivity of morality, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to ground it from your worldview. That’s being rational. The rational person grounds it or gives up that premsie. You wouldn’t let theists just assume certain beliefs and you not be allowed to question them if those are the ones you disagree with.

Allow me to explain (even further). But this time, I will do so with a 6-minute video, since my responses still do not seem to be landing quite well here? And if you should decide to skip the video, one of the points is to demonstrate that if the opponent/interlocutor presents with enough 'pushback,' then the skeptic is probably on to something... Meaning, you likely, in part, agree that the described animal predation, mentioned in the OP, is illogical/immoral too, when compared to the over-all claims of your holy book. Hence, defense mode is a necessity.

‘It means X because that’s what it says’ is assertion, not rational support. You have to talk about the original context, genre, etc.. It was not written in our modern context as a modern scientific claim. It is part of an ancient sacred myth.

To the bold, except when it is.

And I already highlighted the verses. It states what it states, as clear as day. Game over. Please try another argument.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #163]

I'm not saying anything. Science suggests humans are normatively "wired" this way, via biology.

Science is a process. What it reveals is open to interpretation and that requires someone to say something.

[alexxcJRO]

Why does your subjective experience or your relative’s subjective experience trump theirs? I don’t think either subjective experience trumps the other. What this means is that we have to look at the logical foundations. This means you have to support why suffering is evil or explain what the problem with suffering is without the concept of evil.

1. The argument has advanced sir. Do not be dishonest.
Is all about the problem of "great sufferings".
Please do not go back in time. There is no term like evil used anymore.
2. I have worked in hospital and seen tons of very sick people. You could see their "spirit" broken in all of them. Decades of extreme suffering because of disease breaks people.

I never said God isn’t responsible for the existence of hell. The alternatives, to allow beings to create evil for others forever, for no free beings to have ever existed or for no beings at all to have ever existed, are worse options. Our disagreement here is about what exactly God is responsible for.

God is responsible both for the suffering in the omniverse and hell.

Why do you think ‘eternal’ here means torture going on forever?
Why do you think this is either (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?
Why do you think this is either (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?
Why is the smoke rising forever (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?

Let's analyze the Bible shall we:
We have

1.God’s Eternal Reign:
"The Seventh Trumpet
15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”" (Revelation 11:15)

2.Eternal Worship and Glory:
"10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 5:10-11)
"17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.[a] Amen." (1 Timothy 1:17)

3. The Eternal Nature of God:
"8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."(Hebrews 13:8)

4. Eternal Torment:
"10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."(Revelation 20:10)
I bet you think the use of "forever and ever" in (Revelation 11:15), (1 Peter 5:10-11), (1 Timothy 1:17), (Hebrews 13:8) is literal.

If we look at the Greek we the same words used : "αἰῶνας aiōnas τῶν tōn αἰώνων. aiōnōn" in Revelation 11:15, 1 Peter 5:11, 1 Timothy 1:17 and Revelation 20:10(Hell passage).

If one is objective in analyzing the text would conclude that the hell passage refers to eternal torment considering we have the same usage of words in both the English versions and Greek versions.

If one says the Hell passage is metaphorical and the rest are literal one has to provide the objective mechanism by which he determines this that is not just random subjective whims to escape the problem.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #163]

I'm not saying anything. Science suggests humans are normatively "wired" this way, via biology.

Science is a process. What it reveals is open to interpretation and that requires someone to say something.

Outside of 'creationist pseudoscience', I'm quite certain biology lacks too much personal interpretive leeway when it comes to the discoveries of say... evolution for instance.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #163]

I'm not saying anything. Science suggests humans are normatively "wired" this way, via biology.

Science is a process. What it reveals is open to interpretation and that requires someone to say something.

Outside of 'creationist pseudoscience', I'm quite certain biology lacks too much personal interpretive leeway when it comes to the discoveries of say... evolution for instance.

You conflate two things: the empirical findings of science, and the normative conclusions drawn from them.

Biology can describe how humans are—evolved, wired, etc.—but it can’t, by itself, tell us how we ought to be.

When you say humans are “normatively wired this way,” that’s an interpretation, not a direct readout of data. The step from “is” to “ought” always involves saying something, which means the speaker is part of the process.

This relates to my new thread "Truth Statements, Materialism, and the Mask of Objectivity"

You are demonstrating the pattern described: treating the materialist framework as equivalent to reality, while framing my position as needing special justification - the position you interpret as "creationist pseudoscience" even though I made no universal claim. I simply pointed out the conflation between science as a process and science being interpreted and then voiced through prefered worldviews.

The irony is that your position only appears "neutral" or "default" because it aligns with the scientific orthodoxy, not because it's free of interpretation.


You responded by framing that distinction as a defense of pseudoscience - which avoids addressing my actual point. It’s a rhetorical move, not a substantive one.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #167]

William, you are making way too much out of this. It's not really this "deep". Do you have anything to actually debate, regarding the meat-and-potatoes of the topic, or do you instead wish to address trivial sidebar "concerns"?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #167]

William, you are making way too much out of this. It's not really this "deep". Do you have anything to actually debate, regarding the meat-and-potatoes of the topic, or do you instead wish to address trivial sidebar "concerns"?

These are not as trivial as you think POI. However, my initial question to you about this was for clarity re your position, which I now have.

Thanks.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #163]

So you are saying that humans should care about overall wellbeing over their own individual wellbeing because it’s better for their own individual wellbeing?

I'm not saying anything. Science suggests humans are normatively "wired" this way, via biology.

You missed the point. Should we care about overall wellbeing or individual wellbeing? Overall wellbeing? Okay, by what standard? By the standard of individual wellbeing. So, then science doesn’t suggest we should care about overall wellbeing, but individual wellbeing.

Science suggests humans are wired in both ways and doesn’t give us norms on which way one ought to act. It can tell us what humans usually do or the “norms” they try to impose, but not that they should act in one way or the other.

If initial suffering is necessary for conscious beings, then the choices are (1) existence with suffering or (2) non-existence. Are you saying non-existence is the good option there?

Your (If) is doing some heavy lifting and does not yet bare consideration, as (Genesis 1:29-30) negates your given (if).

But you agree with the logic? If so, then it answered the specific question you asked me that I was responding to, namely, that this is why animal suffering (like animal predation) is the good choice to make given the options.

Correct, and I've already explained why that is. It's only deemed 'evil' if the observed action adversely effects the conscious agent's wellbeing. Again, preferring chocolate to vanilla, as the base/primmer for your hot fudge Sunday, may only be an 'amoral' preference.

Yes, that’s my point. ‘X promotes well-being’ is being viewed as an objective truth that should apply to everyone, while ‘vanilla tastes good’ isn’t. How do you ground that as an objective truth?

Then please simply explain why allowing a known parasite to continue invading your pet is in line with your pet's wellbeing? If you cannot, then you can logically say the parasitic action is 'evil', and you get it removed.

If the alternative is that your pet never existed at all, then this analogy fits our discussion. I’d take some years with my loving pet with suffering of different kinds for us both in that relationship over none at all.

In post 146, you stated "The act of creation is what grounds morality." But it clearly is not. I've exposed the flaw of this assertion/statement by citing creation, as it relates to economics alone.

I didn’t just say the act of creation, but God creating a specific nature that includes objective moral purpose. Economics isn’t parallel to that. There is no objective purpose built into economics that “X is too expensive” or “you ought to make as much money as you can” and stuff like that.

Are you saying all animals possess no moral agency, or, that the animals that do possess some moral agencies do not possess the same level of moral agency as a fully functioning human?

It’s possible some animals have some level of moral agency, but I currently am not convinced they do.

Allow me to explain (even further). But this time, I will do so with a 6-minute video, since my responses still do not seem to be landing quite well here? And if you should decide to skip the video, one of the points is to demonstrate that if the opponent/interlocutor presents with enough 'pushback,' then the skeptic is probably on to something...Meaning, you likely, in part, agree that the described animal predation, mentioned in the OP, is illogical/immoral too, when compared to the over-all claims of your holy book. Hence, defense mode is a necessity.

So, if I don’t push back, then the skeptic is right because I’m not pushing back against it, but if I do push back then the skeptic is probably right because I am pushing back against it. That’s ridiculous. Your support for animal predation is evil is “I’ve got no support, but, come on, you agree deep down with me.” That’s irrational.

And only asking for context for differing interpretations of a text is perfectly rational. Sure, we could talk about context on those that we agree on the interpretation, but isn’t that more of a waste of time in a discussion like this? It’s not going to change the argument we are analyzing and disagreeing on. When someone won’t support their interpretation in face of someone who disagrees but simply says “it states what it states” it means they don’t have an argument.