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?'

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #165]

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.

If you are moving it ahead without supporting why great sufferings are a problem, then I’m happy to not follow this “advancement”.

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.

I gave my reasoning. Here it is again:

All throughout scripture dreams and visions depict realities through symbolic imagery. In Rev 1, for instance, John sees seven gold lampstands and seven stars. Sometimes those get interpreted in the text. For instance, a few verses later, Jesus says the lampstands are the seven churches and the stars are their angels. The interpretation is the thing in reality, the vision symbolizes it, but not in a literal way. The churches aren’t gold just because the lampstand is, for instance.

In Rev 20:10, John sees a vision of a lake of fire and torment day and night forever and ever. In verse 14 we are told that the lake of fire is the second death. Just as the lampstands don’t describe what the churches are in details, the eternal torment in the lake of fire doesn’t describe what the second death is in details. That this is a second death, coupled with verse 15 where the names of the unrighteous are not written in the book of life points to finality, as we associate with death.

Verse 14 also says that death is thrown into the lake of fire. Is death being tormented forever? In a few verses (Rev 21:4) we see that death will be no more. Also, the beast thrown in the lake of fire and supposedly tortured forever and ever, an angel tells John in Rev 17:8, that it will be destroyed. Obviously, we should show an author enough charity to not resort to thinking they are complete idiots contradicting themselves within a few verses, when we see what genres they are using and have knowledge of how they work.

Either critique that or apply all of that to the passages you brought up and show some inconsistency.

[POI]

Should we care about overall wellbeing or individual wellbeing?

I do not think science tells us what we 'should' care about more. Only what many/most individuals do prioritize more-so often.

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.

I already spoke to this, in part. Here is more where science/biology/evolution/other comes in. The ones who happen to be "wired" to prioritize individual wellbeing verses overall wellbeing get more-so weeded out of the pool, either by subsequent consequence(s) or other.

But you agree with the logic?

No, because a created world could exist where these animals don't even need to eat. Therefore, predation would never be a thing regardless. Why must they even need to eat anything at all in this created world?

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?

Because you already agreed that 'morality' might as well coincide with the term 'wellbeing'. And we can directly and objectively compare actions against the topic of wellbeing.

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.

The situation is not this binary. Animals/other can be created without having to eat. This negates predation, <even if> some 'suffering' had to logically exist; which you still have not substantiated the need for any animal suffering regardless anyways.

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.

Yes, it is analogous. Money was actually demonstrated to be created. Money was created with an objective purpose, (to use as a means of exchange for goods and services), and also exists with objective value. On the daily, we are objectively reminded to the worth of our possessed and created money. Money can also objectively purchase many good and services.

If I ask a financial planner to help me retire when I'm 60, I will give him my retirement goals. (s)he can then prescribe an objective plan to meet this goal, by performing so-and-so objective actions to meet this goal.

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

If you were to find out that some animals possess some "moral agency", would this change anything in your argument? If so, what? If not, why not?

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.

LOL! No. I'm not sure why my responses here are still not landing? Many many many passages were mentioned, in the Bible, which appear 'immoral.' If you read these passages to any unbeliever, or even someone new to the Bible, most will just agree with the reader, that they appear "immoral" - (by just simply reading them). The seasoned theists instead have to 'defend' them. It's the same in politics, when team-red mentions something about team-blue, which is taken as 'bad' or 'immoral', until the person from the opposite political team 'justifies' it.

So, again, rephrased a bit, is allowing a known parasite to continue invading your pet (without intervention) in line with your pet's wellbeing? If you say not, 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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #172]

I do not think science tells us what we 'should' care about more. Only what many/most individuals do prioritize more-so often.

Okay, then you are a moral subjectivist? Then you should agree with me that the creation of animal suffering isn’t evil. For different reasons, of course, but on moral subjectivism, animal suffering is simply something you don’t prioritize (just like how I don’t prioritize, say, pistachio flavored ice cream). Why fault God for prioritizing something different?

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?

Because you already agreed that 'morality' might as well coincide with the term 'wellbeing'. And we can directly and objectively compare actions against the topic of wellbeing.

I agreed they could be used as synonyms. Then you started treating them as different concepts where one is based off the other and I didn’t agree to that.

This also contradicts what you said above. You think science tells us truths about people’s priorities, not objective priorities regardless of what they feel they should prioritize.

The situation is not this binary. Animals/other can be created without having to eat. This negates predation, <even if> some 'suffering' had to logically exist; which you still have not substantiated the need for any animal suffering regardless anyways.

I’ve shared my reasoning and responded to your critiques on if some suffering must exist; I’m good with letting what I’ve said there stand. As to why this specific kind, as I’ve also said, that is irrelevant because suffering in itself is not evil.

Yes, it is analogous. Money was actually demonstrated to be created. Money was created with an objective purpose, (to use as a means of exchange for goods and services), and also exists with objective value. On the daily, we are objectively reminded to the worth of our possessed and created money. Money can also objectively purchase many good and services.

If I ask a financial planner to help me retire when I'm 60, I will give him my retirement goals. (s)he can then prescribe an objective plan to meet this goal, by performing so-and-so objective actions to meet this goal.

Yes, being a means of exchange for goods and services is an objective truth about money. That we should care about our net worth that much or save for specific retirement goals are subjective add-ons.

If you were to find out that some animals possess some "moral agency", would this change anything in your argument? If so, what? If not, why not?

No, it would not because I also think humans are conscious beings that logically require initial suffering as part of their nature and I think God creating humans isn’t evil either for the exact same reasons.

LOL! No. I'm not sure why my responses here are still not landing? Many many many passages were mentioned, in the Bible, which appear 'immoral.' If you read these passages to any unbeliever, or even someone new to the Bible, most will just agree with the reader, that they appear "immoral" - (by just simply reading them).

The problem is that “simply reading them” out of context is irrational. Why should that be the standard?

So, again, rephrased a bit, is allowing a known parasite to continue invading your pet (without intervention) in line with your pet's wellbeing?

Not if the alternative is that your pet never existed at all.

[POI]

Okay, then you are a moral subjectivist?

For me, it's easy. Does the observed action comply with wellbeing? Well, I fail to see how the exposure to predation, to a group of sentient agents lacking theodicy, actually promotes their wellbeing?

I'm here to point out why the Christian worldview is inconsistent. This raised topic looks to touch upon that inconsistency a bit.

Then you should agree with me that the creation of animal suffering isn’t evil. For different reasons, of course,

It's not an issue for me, like it certainly is for you. I'm merely pointing out the obvious, in that under the Christian worldview, you have a problem.

1) In the beginning, the Bible clearly states that all animals were plant eaters. But they weren't. Therefore, this is false. Hence, at least for some animals, predation could not have been a thing until after "the fall". You attempt to combat this identified problem by asserting that Genesis 1:29-30 is meant to be myth. Well, of course it was.
2) Christian theology gives reason(s) for why human suffering must exist. But these reason(s) do not apply to animal suffering. Nor, have I seen any good reason(s) for their suffering actually necessitating existence?
3) What form of justice involves punishing the innocent anyways, being that the animals were innocent, but were still subjected to later predation/suffering?
4) Suffering is actually not necessity anyways or regardless, as no (predation related suffering) seemed to exist prior to "the fall", nor does it exist again in Heaven.

on moral subjectivism, animal suffering is simply something you don’t prioritize (just like how I don’t prioritize, say, pistachio flavored ice cream). Why fault God for prioritizing something different?

I've already repeatedly explained the difference. The actual "negative moral assessment" applies when the action adversely affects a sentient agent's wellbeing. Ice cream preferences would only do that if actual wellbeing were affected, like being allergic/other. Subjecting one to vanilla ice cream, who is allergic, is against wellbeing, and 'evil.' Alternatively, preferring one flavor over another is more-so 'amoral', as the over-all wellbeing is unaffected in any viable and measurable way -- as opposed to instead (landing them in the hospital, causing death, or other).

I agreed they could be used as synonyms.

Then you started treating them as different concepts where one is based off the other and I didn’t agree to that.

If my response(s) above do not address this concern, then please clarify what you are actually insinuating?

This also contradicts what you said above. You think science tells us truths about people’s priorities, not objective priorities regardless of what they feel they should prioritize.

All I pointed out is that science tells us that most are "wired" to prioritize overall wellbeing above and beyond personal wellbeing. And I also explained that a) evolution, b) us being social animals, and c) consequentialism (is/are) the driving force(s) behind why this wired preference just so happens to be the case.

It's the same reason most humans are believers in some level of creation, verses not, as evolution took care of the ones who are 'wired' to favor type 2 errors over type 1 errors. Most apply type 1 errors over and above type 2 errors instead.

I’ve shared my reasoning and responded to your critiques on if some suffering must exist; I’m good with letting what I’ve said there stand. As to why this specific kind, as I’ve also said, that is irrelevant because suffering in itself is not evil.

Under your worldview, the suffering must fulfill some cosmic goal. You have not established what that goal IS? Further, why does the suffering ALSO include predation? There are infinite type(s) of suffering. Couldn't god's objective, for the animal/other kingdom, have still been accomplished without specifically applying predation? You see Tanager, god is not only asserted to the game player, but the game creator. Why MUST predation be an essential part of the suffering to achieve the goal(s) for the animal/other kingdom?

Yes, being a means of exchange for goods and services is an objective truth about money. That we should care about our net worth that much or save for specific retirement goals are subjective add-ons.

This is why I keep expressing that no one really cares about true 'absolute morality objectivity' until it directly pressed their own worldview.

No

Then I'm just going to skip it, as it won't lead to or go anywhere.

The problem is that “simply reading them” out of context is irrational. Why should that be the standard?

LOL! The title of the video is all about context, as the title of the video is 'Context!!!' The irony...

Not if the alternative is that your pet never existed at all.

Again, with the false dichotomy.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #174]

Here are the new bits to respond to:

Then you started treating them as different concepts where one is based off the other and I didn’t agree to that.

If my response(s) above do not address this concern, then please clarify what you are actually insinuating?

The fallacy of equivocation. I agreed that ‘well-being’ could be used in place of ‘morality’, but not that your view of ‘well-being’ is something objective that can then establish objective morality. I don’t think you have or (within atheism) establish what counts as the ‘well-being’ that should be pursued.

This is why I keep expressing that no one really cares about true 'absolute morality objectivity' until it directly pressed their own worldview.

Whether most people care about anything until directly pressed on their own worldview or not is irrelevant. Some of us care about it even when not pressed because we want to have rational beliefs. What you are doing here is modeling not caring about what directly presses on one’s worldview and that’s the worse of these three things.

LOL! The title of the video is all about context, as the title of the video is 'Context!!!' The irony...

Yes, ironic that theists are being faulted for talking about context to respond to critiques from “skeptics”.

You ready to move on to any of the other topics in your list?

[alexxcJRO]

If you are moving it ahead without supporting why great sufferings are a problem, then I’m happy to not follow this “advancement”.

I don't know if your playing dumb or trolling me at this point.
Or maybe I am speaking in Chinese.
I presented a contradiction. Then made an analogy to make the contradiction more apparent.

Q: Do you not accept logic? The Law of non-contradiction?

God (Yahweh-Jesus) is supposedly an omni-being that cares super duper mucho grande about humans, its creations.
God (Yahweh-Jesus) if it exist does not seem to care super duper mucho grande about humans or maybe not omnipotent(poor loser can't help with alleviating some of that great suffering caused by diseases).
Ergo contradiction. Ergo Problem of Suffering.

All throughout scripture dreams and visions depict realities through symbolic imagery. In Rev 1, for instance, John sees seven gold lampstands and seven stars. Sometimes those get interpreted in the text. For instance, a few verses later, Jesus says the lampstands are the seven churches and the stars are their angels. The interpretation is the thing in reality, the vision symbolizes it, but not in a literal way. The churches aren’t gold just because the lampstand is, for instance.

In Rev 20:10, John sees a vision of a lake of fire and torment day and night forever and ever. In verse 14 we are told that the lake of fire is the second death. Just as the lampstands don’t describe what the churches are in details, the eternal torment in the lake of fire doesn’t describe what the second death is in details. That this is a second death, coupled with verse 15 where the names of the unrighteous are not written in the book of life points to finality, as we associate with death.

Verse 14 also says that death is thrown into the lake of fire. Is death being tormented forever? In a few verses (Rev 21:4) we see that death will be no more. Also, the beast thrown in the lake of fire and supposedly tortured forever and ever, an angel tells John in Rev 17:8, that it will be destroyed. Obviously, we should show an author enough charity to not resort to thinking they are complete idiots contradicting themselves within a few verses, when we see what genres they are using and have knowledge of how they work.

Q: So when Rev 11:15 talks of God’s Eternal Reign we should not take that literally because Revelation is metaphorical?

[POI]

I decided to respond to what you actually decided to address. But I will patiently await actual responses for the rest.

[POI]

Here are the new bits to respond to:

Aside from this, you definitely have not refuted my other given point(s). Please actually address them.

The fallacy of equivocation. I agreed that ‘well-being’ could be used in place of ‘morality’, but not that your view of ‘well-being’ is something objective that can then establish objective morality. I don’t think you have or (within atheism) establish what counts as the ‘well-being’ that should be pursued.

It does not really matter what counts as the 'wellbeing.' You can pick, I can pick, others can pick. At the end of the day, regardless of what IS established as true 'wellbeing', will still not (align/comport) with observed actions against the established defined wellbeing; especially when we evaluate this topic, or my additional given example(s). Many will prove not to promote wellbeing, regardless of what definition of wellbeing we actually decide to institute.

Whether most people care about anything until directly pressed on their own worldview or not is irrelevant.

Yes, it is relevant, and I already explained why.

Some of us care about it even when not pressed because we want to have rational beliefs.

But you have not done so. And my previous response explains why.

What you are doing here is modeling not caring about what directly presses on one’s worldview and that’s the worse of these three things.

Until you can tell me why the allowance of a parasite feasting upon your house pet can promote your house pet's wellbeing, (for which you will likely not be able to do), I am certainly not "modeling". Instead, you have offered a fallacious response, in a false dichotomy.

Yes, ironic that theists are being faulted for talking about context to respond to critiques from “skeptics”.

The video points out exactly what you have been doing.

You ready to move on to any of the other topics in your list?

No, because you have not acknowledged, refuted, and/or conceded some of my points from the previous post. You simply bypassed some of them.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #176]

I don't know if your playing dumb or trolling me at this point.
Or maybe I am speaking in Chinese.
I presented a contradiction. Then made an analogy to make the contradiction more apparent.

Q: Do you not accept logic? The Law of non-contradiction?

God (Yahweh-Jesus) is supposedly an omni-being that cares super duper mucho grande about humans, its creations.
God (Yahweh-Jesus) if it exist does not seem to care super duper mucho grande about humans or maybe not omnipotent(poor loser can't help with alleviating some of that great suffering caused by diseases).
Ergo contradiction. Ergo Problem of Suffering.

You are begging that allowing a creation with natural suffering, even intense instances of it, means God doesn’t care. You have refused to support that move. If you end up supporting it, this part of our conversation can move forward rationally.

Q: So when Rev 11:15 talks of God’s Eternal Reign we should not take that literally because Revelation is metaphorical?

If all we had was that passage, sure, there'd be room for the Messiah's victory not necessarily lasting that long but with the broader context there isn't much room for that as a doctrine because the image of life is an ongoing concept, while the image of death is of finality.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #178]

I have responded to every point I've seen you make. I could have misunderstood you, missed something, or be wrong in what I've said. You could, too. I have nothing new to add because I feel like I've responded to everything you've said. Whether I have refuted you or you have refuted me is up to each person to decide, whoever is ultimately right.

I'm here if you want to continue down the list or clarify any of my responses. Have a wonderful day, POI. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.