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?'

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #80]

Or I was saying that the disagreements about those texts are also not the author’s fault.

This reminds me of disagreements you and I have had Tanager - what I write and what you write - are not the fault of ours...and one method is to try and clarify, but that too hasn't shown to be any answer to the problem - which I think is a case of interpretation.

How we all each interpret and what motivates our particular ways of interpreting...and writing....

[AquinasForGod]

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?'

My answer is my theodicy. It will not all fit here, so here is my medium article -

[POI]

Or I was saying that the disagreements about those texts are also not the author’s fault.

Does an 'omni' god have the ability to clearly express (whether or not) a claim is meant to be (literal or not), to the standard of maximal understanding? Assuming he does, then why didn't he with Genesis and Hell?

No, Rome stamped approval of it hundreds of years later, that's it. And the sword did not change anything in it.

I reckon had the former (2) things not of happened, (1) Rome applying a seal of approval, along with (2) being spread by use of bloodshed, many would merely only happen to cross this collection of claims in passing, like one might find in a comparative religions class or other.... While Christianity was growing on its own, during its first three centuries, its transformation into a dominant global religion was undeniably propelled by the political, infrastructural, and the military power of Rome. But again, Islam may soon take over the number one seed. But again, so what and who cares, as it is related to seeking 'truth'?

And as already stated, since Jesus wrote nothing to paper and bothered not to have anything preserved, we do not know what he really asserted?

I've already told you I don't think they meant it literally.

I know what you think. Can you prove it? How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims?

People do argue that, even though it's absolutely clear it is meant as a literal event. Yet, your principle would have us blame the authors for a lack of clarity. No, it's the readers’ fault and this example you brought up illustrated the point perfectly.

I feel my point continues to be missed. When it comes to topics like "Heaven" or a "resurrection", there is little confusion. Maximum understanding is easily achieved. An 'omni' god would have to know that many believers would later interpret Jesus's words as "ECT" (and/or) the former claims from 'god', regarding Genesis, are being translated as being literal and being rejected. He could have easily cleared up this confusion and opted not to. Being he is an 'omni' god, it would be just as easy to clear this up, as he seems to easily have accomplished maximal undemanding with the other aforementioned topics in "quotes" above. In this case, it is the opposite, in that there are no bad students, but instead bad teacher(s).

We are able to reconstruct what these texts say and have high confidence that Jesus taught these things. We don't have 100% certainty, but reasonable people don't resort to that standard.

Your faith seems to be over-reaching here, as we know to have decades of unfettered (and/or) unregulated oral tradition(s), later to be followed by anonymous authors, with no originals to cross reference. In regard to many of these specific claims, eyewitness attestation is paramount, and the Gospels do not seem to possess any? Couple this with the fact that the Gospels are very low on the 'confidence-meter', when applying or comparing to the historical method, and you are instead required to directly supplement high levels of faith, in place of high levels of confidence/certainty.

The difference is that we actually see God's full presence there.

"Free will" allows for defiance despite evident truth. Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled while in God’s presence, demonstrating that seeing God does not guarantee obedience. To claim otherwise means that something is likely taken away, which omits true "free will" (and/or) the necessity for god to change you in some capacity - so you do not possess the ability for future sin.

And that full presence has to come after having free will, perfecting it; coming at the start would have overwhelmed our freedom.

Negative. Again, Lucifer and company, as expressed above...

You asked me what most Christians would answer. You don't judge what a God-given moral compass says off a poll.

This is because you misinterpreted my response, for which I continue to try and clarify. Allow me to take another stab at it. The point of my asking you to poll Christians, or even non-Christians, is because they will all likely give the same 'god given moral response.' It was part satire. I even told you this is not about an appeal to majority. I then backed it up with your own book of assertions -- the Bible. Other Bible verses back this claim up too. Meaning, your "god given gut feeling" is that gratuitous suffering is bad. Hence, P1 is founded, according to your own Bible.

Christianity clearly teaches we don't follow our moral compass.

I agree. Please re-read the verses I offered (i.e.):

Romans 2:14-15 - "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them".

My point is that, whether or not we follow our 'god given moral compass', we know what is (right/wrong) in our "gut" regardless. Hence, some might lie and state that "gratuitous suffering is good", when they actually do not mean it in their "gut."

That's why you can't rest your case. Do you have rational support for P1?

I most certainly can rest my case. (Whether or not) one says so out loud, all know, in their "gut", that gratuitous suffering is wrong. Hence, P1 and P2 are valid, and demonstrates P3. Case closed.

Only one is relevant here, the former. My worldview does not say animal suffering of that kind is evil, so please support it to keep your argument alive.

I already did, and you have provided nothing to refute it. A), B), and/or C) is/are the theological reason(s) why suffering exists here on earth. Sentient animals/other cannot achieve any of them. Hence, no suffering is logically permitted without being deemed gratuitous for sentient animals/others. Some theists know this problem well, which is why they argue that animals do not actually feel 3rd order pain -- (as a work-around).

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone

[POI]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

Here is one of your direct quotes from the given link:

"animals undergo a form of development that prepares them for an existence beyond their earthly life."

Are you pulling stuff out of your keister?

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans. While animals are part of a creation described as awaiting liberation (Romans 8) and feature in visions of a restored, peaceful future kingdom, they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #84]

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans.

Wherein does the Bible teach that?

[William]

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?'

My answer is my theodicy. It will not all fit here, so here is my medium article -

Divine Foreknowledge and Hypothetical Consent
Logically an omniscient entity would not create anything
also
The Bible does not portray its God as omniscient.
and
a pre-existing choice to exist or not, is not one an eternal entity would be able to make (since it has always existed) therefore - to create anything which can then make the choice - to continue to exist and in a universe which offers free will, is able to remove memory of prior existence (where the created thing gets to choose before entering into such a universe), and suffering is, overreach.

A better reach is to understand that the non-omniscient entity created such a universe and entered into that universe itself by choosing to do so, knowing that the universe it created would deliver it information it previously did not have.

Let's discuss this in line with Levy's Why God Allows Evil (Problem of Evil) post...

(Discussion was had and then the following summary of that was constructed.)

Summary of Interaction: A Critique and Alternative to Levy's Theodicy
The Original Prompt
You requested a detailed summary of Kevin Levy’s post, "Why God Allows Evil," which presented a Thomistic-inspired theodicy in the form of a dialogue between St. Thomas Aquinas and a skeptic, Julian. The core argument: evil does not disprove God, but is a necessary consequence of creating free beings capable of achieving "maximal goodness" through a journey involving suffering.

The AI Summary of Levy's Arguments
Levy’s case, structured in 14 dialogue points, moved systematically:

God as Pure Actuality – The ultimate good, with no unfulfilled potential.

Existence as a Good – Provides the potential for growth toward goodness.

Free Will as Essential – For genuine love, morality, and relationship with God.

Evil as Privation – Not a substance, but a lack of good.

The Inevitability of Evil – Created free beings, being imperfect, will choose poorly.

The Impossibility of Creating Perfect Free Beings – A logical contradiction; such a being would be God.

Suffering as a Teacher – Develops empathy and virtue.

Suffering Overcomes Vice – Humbles pride and exposes the emptiness of greed.

Divine Foreknowledge & Hypothetical Pre-Existence Consent – God only creates those He foresees would consent to life with its suffering, though we do not recall this choice.

Natural Evils – Diseases/disasters are necessary for universal spiritual growth beyond what human free will alone could provide.

Demons & Angels – Provide supernatural testing and aid, strengthening ultimate commitment.

Infant Suffering & Death – Brief lives suffice for a soul's purpose; infants attain heaven.

Animal Suffering – Serves a purpose in their development and God’s redemptive plan for all creation.

Divine Hiddenness – Preserves the authenticity of free faith.

The Core Critique and Development of an Alternative
The discussion then focused on a fundamental critique of Levy’s Point 9 and the underlying classical framework, leading to a proposed alternative.

Critique of Levy's Framework:
The Hypothetical Consent is logically incoherent (a non-existent entity cannot choose) and existentially unsatisfying (justification relies on forgotten consent).

Absolute Omniscience creates a paradox: if all outcomes are foreknown, creation is a pantomime, undermining authentic freedom and growth. This philosophical attribute is also in tension with the biblical portrayal of a God in dynamic relationship.

The structure feels like a "retroactive justification" designed to defend God from a external, legalistic perspective, not to address the sufferer’s experience.

Proposed Alternative: A Participatory, Non-Omniscient Creator
The critique evolved into a coherent alternative model:

The Creator is not exhaustively omniscient regarding the future outcomes of a genuinely free creation. The future is open, contingent, and discoverable.

The Creator's motive is exploration and experiential knowledge. The universe is an experiment to learn something unknown—"What is it like not to be God?"

The Creator enters its own creation. To fully experience finitude, the Divine subjects itself to the amnesiac state of being a limited creature. "God-as-Jesus" is the archetypal symbol of this self-emptying (kenosis) and participation.

Evil and suffering are the inherent risks/costs of this experiment. They are not pre-approved lessons, but emergent properties of a system with freedom, natural laws, and the experience of separation. They are the data points of the experience of limitation.

"Sin" is forgetfulness; "Salvation" is remembrance (anamnesis). The core human problem is not guilt before a judge, but amnesia of our true nature as fragments of the One. The spiritual path is the journey from the dream of separation back to the remembrance of unity.

This reframes the problem of evil from a logical puzzle about divine blame to a relational narrative about shared risk and participatory redemption. The answer to "Why is there suffering?" becomes: "Because the Divine is experiencing finitude as us. We are the One, forgetting itself, in order to know itself through the journey back."

Conclusion
This interaction moved from summarizing a traditional free-will theodicy (Levy) to deconstructing its weaknesses, particularly its reliance on a forgotten, hypothetical consent to justify suffering.

The proposed alternative is a participatory, non-dual, and mystical framework that:

Dissolves the logical problem of evil by relinquishing exhaustive divine foreknowledge.

Transforms the existential problem of evil from a question of external permission to one of internal, divine experience.

Reclaims the Christian narrative as a story of God’s self-emptying into creation and a path of awakening for all beings from the dream of separation.

This is not a theodicy that defends God, but a cosmogony that explains our reality as a conscious, divine exploration in which we are all active, if forgetful, participants. The appropriate response to suffering is not a philosophical justification, but the compassionate reminder: "You are not alone. The Divine suffers with you. This experience is part of a vast journey of awakening. You can remember who you are."

This is not a theodicy.

It is the end of the need for one.

From Defense to Descent
The End of Theodicy and the Birth of Participatory Divinity

[alexxcJRO]

I'm questioning your claim that the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act. I asked you for support for that move and you said it's a moral act (an evil one) because it is unnecessary. Pointing out other things that are unnecessary and amoral fits that context perfectly.
But even if the creation of animal suffering is a moral rather than an amoral act, being unnecessary doesn't mean it is an evil one. Leaving a more generous tip at a restaurant than the standard amount in a kind way is a morally good act and it is unneces

1. Humans are animals sir. Dolphins are very close to humans for example. They poses high Encephalization Quotients in the 4–5 range while humans have 5.7 to 7.4. They are very communicative, have empathy and unique signature whistles that act as names.

The suffering of dolphins-animals is not distinguishable from the suffering of humans-animals.

2. You cannot make any coherent concept of evil without suffering. An act is evil because it involves suffering.
Christianity defines Heaven as a place of no suffering.
"The Evidential Problem of Evil" is a real problem to Christianity.

The amount of suffering an animal(human or otherwise) endures when dealing with cancer, Scleredoma, Cystic Fibrosis, Trigeminal Neuralgia and some genetic diseases is unimaginable. It can go on for decades. It does not create character or any other defense religious people give. It only breaks the "the spirit" and makes existence unbearable.

I have a family member with asthma with 38% respiratory test, left diaphragmatic paralysis, autoimmune issues: lupus and fibromialgia, imunodeficiency, apneea. He suffers greatly everyday(severe pain, severe inflammation, severe problems with breathing, severe eyes issues, can't work, gets tired at the simplest physical effort or any kind of effort, barely sleeps, so tired barely gets out of bed) since 2009 with no end in sight. The problems have only gotten worse and worse.

There is no logical purpose for his huge amount of suffering going day after day for decades. This level of suffering happened for hundreds of millions of years to billions upon billions of animals, for hundreds of millions of years before there was any Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The omni-Yahweh-Jesus simply does not exist. It is just an illogical concept conjured by bronze age goat herders.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #83]

Does an 'omni' god have the ability to clearly express (whether or not) a claim is meant to be (literal or not), to the standard of maximal understanding? Assuming he does, then why didn't he with Genesis and Hell?

I think it is clearly expressed, if one cares to understand the context of the writing. It’s logically impossible to allow free thought and force everyone to clearly understand what is expressed.

I reckon had the former (2) things not of happened, (1) Rome applying a seal of approval, along with (2) being spread by use of bloodshed, many would merely only happen to cross this collection of claims in passing, like one might find in a comparative religions class or other.... While Christianity was growing on its own, during its first three centuries, its transformation into a dominant global religion was undeniably propelled by the political, infrastructural, and the military power of Rome. But again, Islam may soon take over the number one seed. But again, so what and who cares, as it is related to seeking 'truth'?

I don’t see how we could confidently say what would have happened if history went differently. If that is what you meant, why is this relevant to the supposed problem of God creating carnivores?

And as already stated, since Jesus wrote nothing to paper and bothered not to have anything preserved, we do not know what he really asserted?

And I already stated that we can have good confidence that he asserted what was recorded in our earlier writings, but why is this relevant to the supposed problem of God creating carnivores?

I've already told you I don't think they meant it literally.

I know what you think. Can you prove it? How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims?

Why do I need to prove that for my claims about the supposed problem of God creating carnivores?

I feel my point continues to be missed. When it comes to topics like "Heaven" or a "resurrection", there is little confusion. Maximum understanding is easily achieved. An 'omni' god would have to know that many believers would later interpret Jesus's words as "ECT" (and/or) the former claims from 'god', regarding Genesis, are being translated as being literal and being rejected. He could have easily cleared up this confusion and opted not to. Being he is an 'omni' god, it would be just as easy to clear this up, as he seems to easily have accomplished maximal undemanding with the other aforementioned topics in "quotes" above. In this case, it is the opposite, in that there are no bad students, but instead bad teacher(s).

There is great confusion on heaven, as many Christians have read Platonism into the concept and view it as just this place we go to from here after we die, which the texts don’t support at all. And there is confusion on the resurrection as I already noted, but also not because of the texts. The texts are clear enough, but people will read into things whatever they want to try to justify their beliefs. An omni god cannot do the logically impossible, which is create beings with free thought that go through history and cultural shifts and have their own agendas and love to justify their own ways of life and thoughts and this God guarantee they clearly understand these texts; that’s logically impossible.

"Free will" allows for defiance despite evident truth. Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled while in God’s presence, demonstrating that seeing God does not guarantee obedience. To claim otherwise means that something is likely taken away, which omits true "free will" (and/or) the necessity for god to change you in some capacity - so you do not possess the ability for future sin.

I’m not sure that doctrine is Biblical even generally, but even assuming it is, there is a difference between beings initially rebelling upon seeing God and those that have trusted in God prior to seeing Him more fully and then seeing more of Him; humans are already set in that direction and seeing more of God wouldn’t change that.

My point is that, whether or not we follow our 'god given moral compass', we know what is (right/wrong) in our "gut" regardless. Hence, some might lie and state that "gratuitous suffering is good", when they actually do not mean it in their "gut."

That’s not what Romans 2 and those other verses are saying, generally or specifically. Generally, Romans 2 is saying that they do have the law on their conscience, but it does not say that all of their “gut feelings” are true or from God. Specifically, this verse and none of the others puts the creation of animal suffering as evil being part of the god-given moral compass.

I most certainly can rest my case. (Whether or not) one says so out loud, all know, in their "gut", that gratuitous suffering is wrong. Hence, P1 and P2 are valid, and demonstrates P3. Case closed.

So, you have no support and must simply assert it is true…okay.

Only one is relevant here, the former. My worldview does not say animal suffering of that kind is evil, so please support it to keep your argument alive.

I already did, and you have provided nothing to refute it. A), B), and/or C) is/are the theological reason(s) why suffering exists here on earth. Sentient animals/other cannot achieve any of them. Hence, no suffering is logically permitted without being deemed gratuitous for sentient animals/others. Some theists know this problem well, which is why they argue that animals do not actually feel 3rd order pain -- (as a work-around).

I have offered a different reason as to why the creation of animal suffering exists here on earth and you haven’t refuted that.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(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)?
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone[/quote]

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #87]

Yes, humans are animals. The context of this discussion was focused on non-human animal suffering and we shorthanded that as simply animal suffering. Whether there are different levels of suffering that only humans experience is debated within scientific and philosophical circles, but I already stated that even if animals experience less suffering, Christians would still need to explain it.

As to your definition of suffering being necessarily evil, that would mean that dentists are evil and that fixing your teeth is evil. Do you really think that is true?

Heaven is a place without suffering, but it’s also a place without marriage. Marriage isn’t evil and suffering in itself is not necessarily evil. That doesn’t mean we minimize suffering or not seek to limit it. But you need to show that the creation of suffering is evil and unnecessary for God’s purposes.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #87]

Yes, humans are animals. The context of this discussion was focused on non-human animal suffering and we shorthanded that as simply animal suffering. Whether there are different levels of suffering that only humans experience is debated within scientific and philosophical circles, but I already stated that even if animals experience less suffering, Christians would still need to explain it.

As to your definition of suffering being necessarily evil, that would mean that dentists are evil and that fixing your teeth is evil. Do you really think that is true?

Heaven is a place without suffering, but it’s also a place without marriage. Marriage isn’t evil and suffering in itself is not necessarily evil. That doesn’t mean we minimize suffering or not seek to limit it. But you need to show that the creation of suffering is evil and unnecessary for God’s purposes.

I did not say necessarily that all suffering is evil. Please do not straw-man.
I was talking about Evidential Problem of Evil. That great suffering is so prevalent and to such extent that existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-all loving personal God that cares deeply about all his created being seems to be unlikely.

The suffering of my family member poses as great evidence against such a God. By the way he is a Christian who has prayed extensively to this day to this supposed loving and caring God to alleviate some of his pain and suffering. No help was granted because such being are just living in the imaginary world.

Debilitating diseases are a result of an imperfect process called Evolution which does not care about suffering or good efficient design. The only objective is survival.
In a reality with an omni, super loving, caring, personal God we would expect some better efficient designs or at least some interventions to help his beloved created creatures.
Pray does not work, there is no human growing a leg or people getting healed from genetic diseases( which would necessitate the magical change of genetic material ).
It all points to non-existence I am afraid.

Q: Why is there no suffering in Heaven like on Earth if it is such a good thing?