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?'

[Diogenes]

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?'

Why do you believe a world with death and consumption is an evil one?

Good question, in the abstract. But in the context of Christian orthodoxy God created the animals, including tigers, White Sharks, Lions, viruses, bacteria, parasites. He did this knowing tigers and sharks would be compelled to kill in order to survive and that great fear and pain are caused by tearing apart the flesh of Bambi, kittens, homo sapiens, and other species. Evil is the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain and distress. God KNEW ahead of time carnivores would rip flesh and kill; that bacteria and viruses would ravage. But this omnipotent monster of.a god did it anyway, according to Christian orthodoxy.

Why is it that some do not realize or appreciate that the suffering of animals is not different than our own? Certainly with mammals, your pets, your dogs and cats, do you not empathize with them? In what way would I not feel my German Shepherd's pain and horror if I watched him being torn apart trying to save me from a Mountain Lion?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #11]

Why do you believe a world with death and consumption is an evil one?

Good question, in the abstract. But in the context of Christian orthodoxy God created the animals, including tigers, White Sharks, Lions, viruses, bacteria, parasites. He did this knowing tigers and sharks would be compelled to kill in order to survive and that great fear and pain are caused by tearing apart the flesh of Bambi, kittens, homo sapiens, and other species. Evil is the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain and distress. God KNEW ahead of time carnivores would rip flesh and kill; that bacteria and viruses would ravage. But this omnipotent monster of.a god did it anyway, according to Christian orthodoxy.

Why is it that some do not realize or appreciate that the suffering of animals is not different than our own? Certainly with mammals, your pets, your dogs and cats, do you not empathize with them? In what way would I not feel my German Shepherd's pain and horror if I watched him being torn apart trying to save me from a Mountain Lion?

While my understanding is that, scientifically, animals do suffer differently than humans (without some added pyschological elements) your point would still remain. I have great empathy for all in pain, even when good comes of it (kids at a dentist, say). Animals do still inflict the suffering of physical pain on others as a natural part of the world. The Christian God, if He exists, knew it and chose this world anyway.

But why do you think that what follows from these facts is that such suffering is gratuitous and unnecessary?

[POI]

But why do you think that what follows from these facts is that such suffering is gratuitous and unnecessary?

According to the Christian worldview, God uses this "brokenness" for greater purposes, such as a) refining faith, b) drawing people closer to Him, c) revealing his glory, and d) preparing believers for eternal life -- all while offering hope through Jesus Christ's suffering and resurrection.

As I see it, the believers are stuck with (3) options to rationalize this observation:

1) Argue that animals do not feel "suffering" like humans do, as these believers really have no other play to make. Kind of like how WLC argues that animals do not experience "3rd order pain".

2) Few other believers may try to argue that some animals are also invited into heaven.

3) Shrug the shoulders and use the (catch-all) canned answer, 'gods ways are higher than our ways.'

Can you think of any other lame reason(s) as to why animal suffering really exists under the Christian worldview?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

Christians aren't the only ones saying animals don't feel 3rd order pain (see Peter Carruthers, Daniel Dennett, among many others). And the informed ones aren't saying it simply because they have no other play to make. They say it because they think it's the inference to the best explanation of the scientific data. This is clearly not a "play" because it's not enough to meet the critique; first-order pain could still possibly be unnecessary and gratuitous. It's your burden to show that the suffering experienced by animals is unnecessary and gratuitous.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

Christians aren't the only ones saying animals don't feel 3rd order pain (see Peter Carruthers, Daniel Dennett, among many others).

All your response advocates for here, is that not only do some Christian apologists hold to this position, but so too does some philosophers. And philosophers like to argue for all sorts of stuff. Heck, philosopher Peter Carruthers also insists that conscious thought, judgment. and volition are all just illusions (

Do you? I doubt it. Hence, your argument here is a non-starter. The 'science' suggests that 'high functioning' animals have the ability for the conscious experience of pain.

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

The concept of "third order pain" is not a standard, recognized scientific term in the study of animal or human pain perception. Pain perception in animals is generally discussed in terms of nociception (the basic physiological process of sensing harm) and the conscious experience of pain, which involves higher brain functions. Nociception involves three orders of neurons that relay sensory information to the brain:

First-order neurons (nociceptors) detect noxious stimuli in the body.

Second-order neurons carry the signals from the spinal cord to the brainstem and thalamus.

Third-order neurons relay the information from the thalamus to the cerebral cortex, where the sensation is processed into a conscious, emotional experience of pain.

Therefore, the question is effectively asking which animals have the complex neural architecture necessary to process pain signals at the highest, conscious level (involving the cerebral cortex). Animals considered capable of a conscious, pain-like experience include: All vertebrates, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish.

The consensus among scientists and veterinarians is that all vertebrates should be considered capable of experiencing pain due to the similar structure of their nervous systems, neurochemicals, and pain behaviors to humans.

Some invertebrates, particularly those with complex central nervous systems, such as: Cephalopods (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish) have remarkably well-developed nervous systems and strong evidence suggests they are capable of experiencing pain and suffering in a way that alters their motivational state and future behavior. Crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) show complex behaviors when injured (e.g., specific grooming of injured areas, avoiding electric shock in a preferred shelter) that suggest more than just a simple nociceptive reflex. Insects, such as fruit flies and crickets, have also shown evidence of chronic pain-like states and the ability to modulate their responses to harm.

Animals with simpler nervous systems, such as oysters, jellyfish, and some worms, likely experience only basic nociception (a simple withdrawal reflex from a harmful stimulus) without a conscious awareness or emotional component of pain.

And the informed ones aren't saying it simply because they have no other play to make.

Ironically, the 'informed ones' aren't actually appealing to established "science" either.

first-order pain could still possibly be unnecessary and gratuitous. It's your burden to show that the suffering experienced by animals is unnecessary and gratuitous.

Okay. Here are some of the given reasons as to why animals experience suffering. Please pick the one you are rolling with?:

1) "The fall of man". In order to believe this, the believer may need to reject some 'science', as "Adam and Eve" are likely fictional characters?
2) "The "Soul-Making" Theodicy - (Greater Good)". But an all-perfect God could think of no better or alternative way to accomplish his wanted task?
3) "Cosmic Interconnectedness & Consequences of Sin" - Some animals receive redemption too?
4) "Divine Purpose & Natural Order" - But an all-perfect God could think of no better or alternative way to accomplish his wanted task?
5) "Future Renewal" - But an all-perfect God could think of no better or alternative way to accomplish his wanted task?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #15]

Why would agreeing with someone on some things and not other things have anything to do with our conversation? Each belief should be taken on its own merit.

The main point wasn't about whether animals experience third order pain or not (although I also think you are misunderstanding things there). Even if they don't, humans do. The main question of the thread still remains. Is God good to allow such a situation?

You seem to be saying God clearly is not good because the suffering animals experience is unnecessary and gratuitous. You have the burden to support that claim. You seemed to be more focused on why your opponents' support fails, but you have the burden to positively support your view. I’m asking for that support to be clearly outlined so I know what your argument is, so I can better engage it. Can you clearly lay that out?

[POI]

You seem to be saying God clearly is not good because the suffering animals experience is unnecessary and gratuitous.

Your assumption is incorrect. I'm saying it is illogical for animals to suffer, under the Christan worldview. The Christian argues for why human suffering exists. I also gave some of the reason(s) Christian pose as to why animals (do or do not) actually suffer.

Under your worldview:

-- Do animals actually suffer? (yes or no)
-- If (yes), why?
-- If (no), what is the point of their appearance to suffer?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #17]

I have not given any reasons for why I think human suffering exists for you to argue that my Christian view is illogical. Nor is that what I came into this thread for.

I was responding to the implied claim that a caring, loving God would not create a world where organisms survive by killing and eating other organisms because that would involve the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain and distress. I'm asking for support for that being true. That's the claim I came in to discuss. Your responses to my comments should be within that context, not asking me to address a different claim.

[POI]

I already posited the reason(s) as to why Christians argue for suffering, and none of them are logical. If you have another one, please advise.

I was responding to the implied claim that a caring, loving God would not create a world where organisms survive by killing and eating other organisms because that would involve the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain and distress.

Yes, I know.

I'm asking for support for that being true.

Are you asking because you are completely agnostic to the claim, or, are you instead asking because you disagree with the OPer's statement? Further, in order to engage here, I need answers to the questions at the bottom of this response.

That's the claim I came in to discuss. Your responses to my comments should be within that context, not asking me to address a different claim.

I'm asking where exactly YOU stand on the matter? Under your worldview:

-- Do animals actually suffer? (yes or no)
-- If (yes), why?
-- If (no), what is the point of their appearance to suffer?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

You may want to focus on analyzing Christian claims on this issue, but I was analyzing a different claim. You don't need to know my positive view on the matter in order to engage me in that. I'm not a fan of analyzing one argument and then being responded to in a way that ignores that analysis and tries to get me to talk about a different argument, even if it is related. So, if you would like to give me your take on the claim I was analyzing first, once we are done with that, I will gladly turn my attention to what you want to focus on.