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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #20]

The topic simply asks --- "why did the Hebrew God create carnivores?'. The question is asked because, if a god claims to (love) his "creation", for which we assume the Hebrew god created the animals too, why would the mere act of eating require "gratuitous suffering"? Some argue that animals do not really suffer. This is one of the only apologetic workarounds I have seen, as for why a claimed all-loving god would design such a required system. Maybe humans only think they suffer, when they actually don't? So, pardon me for asking you a very basic set of questions, which is meant to address the topic head on. Further, I already gave you some of the other reason(s) Christian apologists give for animal suffering. I also offered a brief contention for why those positions are unfounded.

As the OPer states, 'the fall' seems to be the go-to reason for why suffering now exists. But this still begs the follow-up question, why do animals suffer? But maybe they do not really suffer, and god is tricking us to think they really are suffering? Under the Christan worldview, humans may or may not enter a place where suffering no longer exists. Alternatively, animals appear to suffer, and then just die? If god loves animals, why design such a system, (where the mere act of eating requires the torture of another animal)? Please enlighten us?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #21]

Yes, the topic asks that question, assuming that the creation of carnivores involves gratuitous suffering. I'm wanting to explore that assumption. If you want to engage me in this thread, you need to address that first and then I'd be happy to address your questions.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #21]

Yes, the topic asks that question, assuming that the creation of carnivores involves gratuitous suffering. I'm wanting to explore that assumption. If you want to engage me in this thread, you need to address that first and then I'd be happy to address your questions.

We've already been over this. You mentioned "Peter Carruthers", who argues that conscious thought is a mere illusion. Is this your position too? If so, then none of us, (human or not), actually 'suffer'.

[The Tanager]

We've already been over this. You mentioned "Peter Carruthers", who argues that conscious thought is a mere illusion. Is this your position too? If so, then none of us, (human or not), actually 'suffer'.

No, that is not my position; I think humans and animals both actually suffer. Do you believe that creating carnivores involves creating gratuitous suffering? If so, why?

[POI]

I think humans and animals both actually suffer. Do you believe that creating carnivores involves creating gratuitous suffering? If so, why?

To the bold...

"Gratuitous suffering refers to intense, seemingly pointless pain that serves no greater purpose/goal, often used in philosophy and theology to challenge the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God, as such suffering appears unnecessary and unjustified by any conceivable purpose or compensating benefit. It's suffering that could have been prevented by a benevolent deity without losing some essential "good" or permitting an even "worse" outcome, making it seem irrational and evil.".

Is the above definition in red agreeable for you? If not, please provide an alternative.

[The Tanager]

"Gratuitous suffering refers to intense, seemingly pointless pain that serves no greater purpose/goal, often used in philosophy and theology to challenge the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God, as such suffering appears unnecessary and unjustified by any conceivable purpose or compensating benefit. It's suffering that could have been prevented by a benevolent deity without losing some essential "good" or permitting an even "worse" outcome, making it seem irrational and evil."

I would only take out the bolded words above as leaving them in make it about how we perceive things, not the concept itself that we are discussing. This does not mean one needs to prove with 100% certainly the gratuitousness of the suffering.

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #26]

Under Christian views, animal suffering isn't necessarily deemed "necessary" but is often explained as a consequence of a fallen world, inherent in natural processes like predation for a functioning ecosystem, or as part of a greater cosmic story leading to human "soul-making" and ultimate redemption in a renewed creation where animals also find restoration. Explanations vary, but common themes include suffering as a byproduct of autonomy, the interconnectedness of creation (animals groaning with humanity due to sin), and the idea that animals experience pain differently (lacking self-awareness of it as "evil") than humans.

I already touched on this in prior responses.

What is the point of animal suffering at all? If god can do anything, why not keep animals eating plants, if he can re-order things any way he so chooses? Or heck, animals don't need to eat at all? From a commonsense perspective, the logical conclusion, (while asserting the existence of an all-loving creator), is illogical. Unless you wish to argue in favor of the topics in bold above, or other? Please enlighten us?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #27]

What does it mean to say God can do anything? He can't do the illogical; no one can and more power can't change that.

If animal suffering were a consequence of the Fall, wouldn't that mean God would have to lose the good of free will to avoid it? If the same thing that allows for a functioning ecosystem for physical beings allows for predation, then choosing no animal suffering would be choosing no us and the world would lose that good. We could ask the same of other cases and each theory would need to be assessed on their own merit.

Do you think those would be worth the loss in every case? Or are you saying that there is another way to get those same things without the animal suffering?

If the latter, then you need to give the actual alternative, not just share a vague kind of sentiment that surely an all-perfect God should be able to think of a better alternative; that’s not an actual support for the underlying principle that needs supporting. What are the better alternatives God could have done without losing the good in each theory?

[POI]

Prior to proceeding, we might need to flesh out some unresolved (and/or) undefined <terms/assertions>.

What does it mean to say God can do anything? He can't do the illogical; no one can and more power can't change that.

When you say this, do you mean "he can't do the illogical", in the sense that god cannot make a 'square circle' or a 'married bachelor' or 'make a rock so heavy god cannot lift it'? Or also, does this topic of (logic) also include defying any sound reasoning at all?

Further, what is your take on the 'omni' topic for the assertion of the Hebrew Bible God? Meaning, does the Hebrew Bible God possess (complete and/or maximal) omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc?,

If animal suffering were a consequence of the Fall, wouldn't that mean God would have to lose the good of free will to avoid it?

What exactly is "free will" and do you think any sentient beings actually have it? If we do not have free will, then your question is a non-starter.

If the same thing that allows for a functioning ecosystem for physical beings allows for predation, then choosing no animal suffering would be choosing no us and the world would lose that good. We could ask the same of other cases and each theory would need to be assessed on their own merit.

Do you think those would be worth the loss in every case? Or are you saying that there is another way to get those same things without the animal suffering?

Without gaining perspective to the above, I'm not sure I can logically substantiate any actual answer(s) here?

If the latter, then you need to give the actual alternative, not just share a vague kind of sentiment that surely an all-perfect God should be able to think of a better alternative; that’s not an actual support for the underlying principle that needs supporting. What are the better alternatives God could have done without losing the good in each theory?

If such a god is 'omni', then god already knew "the fall" was later going to be a thing and decided to create it anyways?

And speaking of 'logic', an 'omni' god logically would not "punish" a sentient agency, let alone all the rest of his creation who (did not) break the said instruction, (who lacked ability to know "right from wrong" at the time they broke the command), would he? To do so anyways, lays question to the word "justice" itself, and what this word/concept actually means to the Bible God? According to the Hebrew Bible God, what is justice, as it relates to punishing unaware sentient agents, and also punishing others who did not even commit the unwanted act to begin with?

And why make the punishment "turning many into carnivores" to boot?

And when did 'the fall' actually happen, a few thousand years or ago, or other? I mean, the dinosaurs were extinct way before humans ever came onto the scene. And yet, they already were eating each other. Doesn't this basic observation defy basic logic alone?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #29]

Question we are exploring: Assuming theism, is the animal suffering present in our world unnecessary and gratuitous? Thanks for exploring this with me, POI.

Prior to proceeding, we might need to flesh out some unresolved (and/or) undefined <terms/assertions>.

What does it mean to say God can do anything? He can't do the illogical; no one can and more power can't change that.

When you say this, do you mean "he can't do the illogical", in the sense that god cannot make a 'square circle' or a 'married bachelor' or 'make a rock so heavy god cannot lift it'? Or also, does this topic of (logic) also include defying any sound reasoning at all?

I was thinking of the former sense. I'm not sure if I understand the latter. I do think God's reasoning would always be sound, if that is what you mean.

Further, what is your take on the 'omni' topic for the assertion of the Hebrew Bible God? Meaning, does the Hebrew Bible God possess (complete and/or maximal) omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc?,

I do believe God has those attributes defined as something like:

omnibenevolence - being morally perfect, always willing and doing what is morally right

omnipotence - the ability to do anything that is logically possible

omniscience - knowing all truths and believing no falsehoods...omniscience doesn't necessarily include knowing the future because if the future doesn't exist there is no truth to be known (although I currently lean towards God knowing the future) or experiential knowledge (what it feels like to be me or you, for instance).

omnipresence - being present everywhere...omnipresence could be attained through different ways, such as spatial extension (which I don't think God has) as well as knowing everything that occurs at every point in space and causally sustaining everything that exists there (which I do think describes God).

If animal suffering were a consequence of the Fall, wouldn't that mean God would have to lose the good of free will to avoid it?

What exactly is "free will" and do you think any sentient beings actually have it? If we do not have free will, then your question is a non-starter.

First, I don't think animal suffering is a consequence of the fall (in the sense of initiating it), but I included it because the claim we are analyzing requires rebutting many things and I could be wrong on this front. I agree that your reading of Genesis leads to some problems; I just think your interpretation is wrong.

Second (to answer your question, as it has ramifications beyond if the fall caused animal suffering to begin) free will can be defined as something like: the ability to choose between genuinely available alternatives in a way that isn't determined by prior causes or sufficient conditions.

The burden would be on the one making the claim we are analyzing to show free will does not exist, if they think that must be done to maintain the claim.

If the same thing that allows for a functioning ecosystem for physical beings allows for predation, then choosing no animal suffering would be choosing no us and the world would lose that good. We could ask the same of other cases and each theory would need to be assessed on their own merit.

Do you think those would be worth the loss in every case? Or are you saying that there is another way to get those same things without the animal suffering?

Without gaining perspective to the above, I'm not sure I can logically substantiate any actual answer(s) here?

If you still feel you can't after gaining the above perspective, please ask any more questions you need.