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 POI in post #47]

It depends on what one means when they say 'evil.' I'd instead ask -- why animal suffering is (necessary) or even (logical), under such a world view? I'd instead argue that a claimed 'omni' god can do anything he chooses. Are animals, (which suffer by way of being slowly eaten alive), a necessity? If not, then it is gratuitous.

Is your argument (in basic terms) pointing to the idea of an omni creator entity and saying that such an entity would not create such a state re the unnecessary suffering of blameless animals?

Pretty much, yea? I'm open to revision (at any point). And quite honestly, I'm still peeling back the onions layers myself, out of morbid curiosity, as animal suffering does seem 'gratuitous'. So, IS IT? And if so, is gratuitous suffering 'evil'? I honestly have no 'stake' in this argument though... Like I told Tanager, from the jump, for me, it's like arguing WHAT the attributes really are for Santa Claus. It's just a thought exercise. Maybe the Bible god created animals, which suffer by being torn apart, because he likes to watch them suffer in that way? And since "god" did it, it's deemed 'good'?.?.?.

The reason I asked is because Compassionist and I recently finished a discussion about the Omni-God concept and agreed that an Omni-omni entity would NOT create anything.

My understanding is that this alone doesn't mean we do no exist within a created thing, but that it has to change how we think of a creator of said thing (which is what you and Tanager are presently arguing about - whether seriously or as a thought exercise).

I currently find myself unable to get into discussion or argument with those who believe a creator entity has to be omni, in part due to what Compassionist and I worked out together...because such argument loops...so that is in part why I was asking you for clarification.

Thanks for you reply.

[POI]

The reason I asked is because Compassionist and I recently finished a discussion about the Omni-God concept and agreed that an Omni-omni entity would NOT create anything.

Thanks for the info. I have not done such a 'deep dive', regarding the possible problem of an 'omni' god myself. But yea, without doing such a dive, it does appear to be a problem for such believers.?.?.? This is, in part, why I wanted Tanager's clarification on what an "omni' god actually means to him, for which he responded in post 30. And then the conversation keeps kind of splintering off, due to natural progression?

Anywho... I now harken back to a video I watched many years ago, and one I've posted a couple of times here. Near the beginning of the video, the illustrator points out the fact that it would seem to make little sense for such an agency to create anything? Pay close attention from minute (1:15 to 1:20):



Meaning, it's the very first point he mentions, (for which you also bring forth in this exchange), and seems to warrant further inquiry.

[The Tanager]

I'd say the Bible is unclear, undetailed, and non-specific about some precarious topics -- (see post 43, where I also mention 'sin'). This topic looks to also be one of them, as evidence by the fact that you cannot (say one way or another), as to the conclusion of 'pre-fall' animal predation. Using common sense, being that the Bible lacks specific detail in some of these precarious 'moral' topics for Christians, is the Christian able to discern a conclusion, using one's own 'god-given' common sense, (while reading the Bible), as to (whether or not) animal predation was allowed <prior to "the fall">?

Yes, the Bible doesn’t answer all questions. Christians have other avenues (science, history, philosophy, common sense, etc.) to explore and come to conclusions on those. I think science and philosophy show that animal predation most reasonably occurred before the “fall”.

God's "punishment" of humans didn't include the initiation of animal suffering.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You admitted above that the Bible is unclear about whether or not animal predation existed prior to 'the fall'.

Those are two different cakes (i.e., questions), so you can eat one and still have the other. Did animal predation exist prior to the fall? Bible doesn’t answer that one. What does the Bible say was the “punishment” of humans for the fall? Human decisions to do what is good in their own eyes instead of what God guides them to will lead to strained relationships between parents and children (Gen 3:16), between women and men (16), between humans and working the ground (17-19), and exile from the tree of life (22-24).

What I'm asking is why would a deemed 'all-loving' god create sentient agents, which will endure vast amounts of suffering, (which also includes being slowly eaten alive), if they do not possess the ability to apply a) rebellion against god, and/or are b) incapable of faith, and/or are c) incapable of 'theodicy'?

And I’ve answered that multiple times, which you've responded to: the type of environment we live in requires it.

It depends on what one means when they say 'evil.' I'd instead ask -- why animal suffering is (necessary) or even (logical), under such a world view? I'd instead argue that a claimed 'omni' god can do anything he chooses. Are animals, (which suffer by way of being slowly eaten alive), a necessity? If not, then it is gratuitous.

Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

If the (decay and suffering) are gratuitous, then wouldn't it be deemed 'evil'? Is gratuitous suffering 'evil'? Animal suffering, by being eaten alive, looks to be pointless and/or unjustified suffering that serves no "greater good". A "moral wrong", without a redeeming purpose, challenges the existence or nature of a claimed benevolent God, and prompts continued discussion(s) on the problem of "evil" and "theodicy".

If a movie includes an unnecessary extra scene, does that make it evil? Clearly not. Therefore, being gratuitous is not enough to call something evil. You need to show animal suffering is evil before the ‘necessary’ question is even relevant to be explored.


Still needing to be addressed from post 43:

God’s idea of justice
Why Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15 are examples of coercion
Belief is not a choice
Did I miss any?

[The Tanager]

I recall that in a prior conversation with you that you stated that you did not understand "the fall" in the same way a lot of Christians did?
Can you briefly describe how you see"the fall" please.

Many Christians read it as a modern historical account with exact details and all of that. I believe it is mythical (which does not mean false) that could be based on an historical event, but doesn’t have to be. Either way, I think it is teaching how our human desire to decide for ourselves what is good and bad lead to the problems we see in us and in our societies.

[POI]

Yes, the Bible doesn’t answer all questions. Christians have other avenues (science, history, philosophy, common sense, etc.) to explore and come to conclusions on those. I think science and philosophy show that animal predation most reasonably occurred before the “fall”.

Sure, science clearly shows that predation has been a thing for millions of years. But the BIG question remains, did the actual <author/provider/purveyor> of Genesis, (who apparently is god, who is giving this information to Moses/other to write down), also think that animal predation has been a thing for millions of years? You see, if the 'big guy' thinks otherwise, then it's really game-over. Why? A claimed "omni" god is fundamentally wrong about objective reality, unless all of science is incorrect in reality?

I've already did some digging, and there is infighting among Christians as to (whether or not) the Bible illustrates predation prior to "the fall"or not? Now, your position seems to instead be that the Bible does not even try to really say (one way or another). This is why the Bible being unclear reeks havoc among believers. Since the Bible is unclear, you can have perpetual infighting, while exploring (3) Christian positions; (i.e.) a) no predation prior, b) predation prior, or c) the Bible does not clarify.

Why is this a problem? The ones who opt for option a), deny observable facts, as demonstrated from science. If such scientific facts were to become undeniable for this Christian, they would most likely then REJECT the Bible, as the Bible would no longer be compatible with their reality.

Hence, the Bible being unclear (in places) is a little more than a mere seemingly benign observation, as we are speaking about a true dichotomy between (eternal bliss (vs) eternal torment). The stakes are very HIGH, and your god seems not to care for revision/other. Maybe because he was never there to begin with, and Moses/other just wrote what they thought, with no actual divine/'omni' insight at all?.?.?.? Quite frankly, I see nothing from this collection of books which would require 'omni'/divine insight, but I largely now digress

If a movie includes an unnecessary extra scene, does that make it evil? Clearly not. Therefore, being gratuitous is not enough to call something evil. You need to show animal suffering is evil before the ‘necessary’ question is even relevant to be explored.

It depends... We are on the topic of possible (unnecessary suffering). Not just an extra 'benign' scene in a movie.

<a) rebellion against god, and/or are b) incapable of faith, and/or are c) incapable of 'theodicy'>

You missed a key part. Expressed multiple times... Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

Still needing to be addressed from post 43:

God’s idea of justice
Why Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15 are examples of coercion
Belief is not a choice
Did I miss any?

Almost...

1) What is god's version of justice?
2) Jesus presents coercion, which is, for all intents and purposes, the antithesis of 'free will'
3) Jesus's presented salvation is based upon belief, which is not even a choice BTW, (let alone a free choice)
4) I wanted to also follow up and explore the possible 'omni' problem, as we left off in post 32, and as William has also brought forth, as William seems to suggest raises problems

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #55]

Sure, science clearly shows that predation has been a thing for millions of years. But the BIG question remains, did the actual <author/provider/purveyor> of Genesis, (who apparently is god, who is giving this information to Moses/other to write down), also think that animal predation has been a thing for millions of years? You see, if the 'big guy' thinks otherwise, then it's really game-over. Why? A claimed "omni" god is fundamentally wrong about objective reality, unless all of science is incorrect in reality?

I've already did some digging, and there is infighting among Christians as to (whether or not) the Bible illustrates predation prior to "the fall"or not? Now, your position seems to instead be that the Bible does not even try to really say (one way or another). This is why the Bible being unclear reeks havoc among believers. Since the Bible is unclear, you can have perpetual infighting, while exploring (3) Christian positions; (i.e.) a) no predation prior, b) predation prior, or c) the Bible does not clarify.

The question is what causes the lack of clarity. If someone is reading a question into the text that it isn’t addressing this is not the text or author being unclear on that question; it’s just not answering it. If I claim to be able to read quantum physics into Romeo and Juliet and then others agree with me and then others disagree, is this Shakespeare being unclear on quantum physics? Of course not.

Why is this a problem? The ones who opt for option a), deny observable facts, as demonstrated from science. If such scientific facts were to become undeniable for this Christian, they would most likely then REJECT the Bible, as the Bible would no longer be compatible with their reality.

Hence, the Bible being unclear (in places) is a little more than a mere seemingly benign observation, as we are speaking about a true dichotomy between (eternal bliss (vs) eternal torment). The stakes are very HIGH, and your god seems not to care for revision/other.

The Bible never claims that understanding everything is required for that choice. You do not need to have the right view on animal suffering to be with God. You don’t need to know how it all makes sense. Now, if you could show it doesn’t make sense, this could be reason to reject God.

You missed a key part. Expressed multiple times... Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

No, I didn’t miss it, I shared why it’s not the key part multiple times. If animal suffering is not evil then there is no reason to give a reason for why this suffering is necessary for a greater good.

You attempted to say anything gratuitous is evil so that it could be a key part, but I countered that because we know of gratuitous things that are not evil. So, either try something else or offer support that animal suffering is evil.

Still to be addressed…

(1) What is god's version of justice?
(2) Does Jesus present coercion (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)?
(3) Is belief a choice (and does Jesus present salvation as a choice)?
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem?

[POI]

The question is what causes the lack of clarity.

Ambiguity, where ambiguity should not exist. An all-knowing god would know that many may read more into the verse than what he intended. The fact that many verses are (open for interpretation), and can successfully be argued convincingly, (while holding opposing views with one another), is a problem for the Bible.

If someone is reading a question into the text that it isn’t addressing this is not the text or author being unclear on that question; it’s just not answering it. If I claim to be able to read quantum physics into Romeo and Juliet and then others agree with me and then others disagree, is this Shakespeare being unclear on quantum physics? Of course not.

See my response above... Further, most/all books do not express grave consequence for misinterpretation.

The Bible never claims that understanding everything is required for that choice.

Linked to the above... This is not my point. My point is/was that some will fall away, due to its perceived incompatibility. And in such a case, the stakes are paramount.

You do not need to have the right view on animal suffering to be with God. You don’t need to know how it all makes sense. Now, if you could show it doesn’t make sense, this could be reason to reject God.

Well, I do not think it does make sense. And I've explained why. See below...

No, I didn’t miss it, I shared why it’s not the key part multiple times. If animal suffering is not evil then there is no reason to give a reason for why this suffering is necessary for a greater good.

You attempted to say anything gratuitous is evil so that it could be a key part, but I countered that because we know of gratuitous things that are not evil. So, either try something else or offer support that animal suffering is evil.

You missed my (edit). Here it is again:

(edit) -- It depends... We are on the topic of possible (unnecessary suffering). Not just an extra 'benign' scene in a movie.

<a) rebellion against god, and/or are b) incapable of faith, and/or are c) incapable of 'theodicy'>

You missed a key part. Expressed multiple times... Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

Still to be addressed…

(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 -- (added)

[William]

I recall that in a prior conversation with you that you stated that you did not understand "the fall" in the same way a lot of Christians did?
Can you briefly describe how you see"the fall" please.

Many Christians read it as a modern historical account with exact details and all of that. I believe it is mythical (which does not mean false) that could be based on an historical event, but doesn’t have to be. Either way, I think it is teaching how our human desire to decide for ourselves what is good and bad lead to the problems we see in us and in our societies.

Thanks for your reply Tanager.

If I am reading correctly then, you do not take the story of Adam and Eve literally. It is more along the lines of useful fiction. ("Useful fiction" is my definition of mythology.) - if I am reading you correctly here?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

Ambiguity, where ambiguity should not exist. An all-knowing god would know that many may read more into the verse than what he intended. The fact that many verses are (open for interpretation), and can successfully be argued convincingly, (while holding opposing views with one another), is a problem for the Bible.

Does the Bible specifically note that the God is an Omni-entity (in the way many Christians claim Him to being) ?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

Ambiguity, where ambiguity should not exist. An all-knowing god would know that many may read more into the verse than what he intended. The fact that many verses are (open for interpretation), and can successfully be argued convincingly, (while holding opposing views with one another), is a problem for the Bible.

It is logically impossible to make a text perfectly understandable to all cultures because of the differences of culture, language, free will and our desire to justify our beliefs and actions, whether they are right or wrong.

Linked to the above... This is not my point. My point is/was that some will fall away, due to its perceived incompatibility. And in such a case, the stakes are paramount.

And my point is the perceived incompatibility is not the text or the author’s fault.

No, I didn’t miss it, I shared why it’s not the key part multiple times. If animal suffering is not evil then there is no reason to give a reason for why this suffering is necessary for a greater good.

You attempted to say anything gratuitous is evil so that it could be a key part, but I countered that because we know of gratuitous things that are not evil. So, either try something else or offer support that animal suffering is evil.

You missed my (edit). Here it is again:

(edit) -- It depends... We are on the topic of possible (unnecessary suffering). Not just an extra 'benign' scene in a movie.

<a) rebellion against god, and/or are b) incapable of faith, and/or are c) incapable of 'theodicy'>

You missed a key part. Expressed multiple times... Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

I didn’t say it was a ‘benign’ scene, but simply a gratuitous or unnecessary scene. The content of the scene doesn’t matter for this point.

You need to establish animal suffering as evil to then be able to talk about whether it is a necessary evil or not.

Still to be addressed…

(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