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 William in post #58]

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?

You are welcome William.

I am agnostic on whether there was an actual first couple or if their disobedience involved eating the fruit of a literal tree instead of something else or if it is completely made up as a way to talk about a deeper truth. I think certain details could have a historical truth to them, but I don't think that is necessarily true. I wouldn’t use “fiction”, but perhaps you would to describe what I just tried to nuance?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #58]

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?

You are welcome William.

I am agnostic on whether there was an actual first couple or if their disobedience involved eating the fruit of a literal tree instead of something else or if it is completely made up as a way to talk about a deeper truth. I think certain details could have a historical truth to them, but I don't think that is necessarily true. I wouldn’t use “fiction”, but perhaps you would to describe what I just tried to nuance?

Not sure, but I think of it like a story told where the situation and characters are not meant to be taken literally but the message inbedded is meant to be accepted as accurate - as in "the moral of the story is"...so a useful fiction...

in looking up the definitions of mythology and myth...


myth:

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.


mythology:

a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

2. the study of myths.

...I would say that the 1. in both approximately denote what I mean by the term "useful fiction".

I use the word "fiction" in relation to useful, to denote that it is not so likely factual re the scenes and the characters but useful as a device for helping one to understand things - in this case - about morality as the Biblical Cultures generally understand it.

I also think that the story could be explained as literal, without invoking supernaturalism, but that is "another story" and since the Bible stories don't go into such details, unless someone were to argue the stories were literal and should be taken literally, and I felt inclined to argue against that position, and argue those alternatives, I tend to accept that the stories are useful fiction and will call them that to state my position along those lines.

I also realise that many folk don't like what they think of as truth, to be referred to as fiction because the connotation therein...

fiction:

1. literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

2. something that is invented or untrue.

...and am using the word re 1. rather than 2.

(Unfortunately, our use of language habitually conflates different meanings for the same words, which doesn't help re communication)

useful:
1. able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways.

2.very able or competent in a particular area.

which in this case both 1 and 2 are appropriate being they are approximate to each other.

truth:
1. the quality or state of being true.

2. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

I accept 1 and 2 but because 3 conflates fact with belief, muddying the waters rather than clarifying.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #62]

William,

I don’t think the story is meant to be taken hyper-literally (as in a modern historical account), but it could have a historical core. Either way, I agree the main point is the “moral of the story”.

In the definitions you offered, I agree it is a myth (1) and mythology (1). I do think calling it a “useful fiction” can cause the confusion you point to, so that needs to be nuanced when someone is using it, but I’m okay with your fiction (1) with that nuance that it’s not fiction (2). I think useful (1) and (2) and agree with what you say about truth (1), (2), and (3).

[POI]

It is logically impossible to make a text perfectly understandable

Even if the above is granted, despite a clear distinction between this collection of texts and it's aided 'omni' god directed handy-work, the Bible still falls well short of <even achieving maximal understanding> regardless. As stated, prior, countless believers are forced to (ignore/deny/handwave) the sciences, to protect an existing belief, as they read Genesis as literal. Otherwise, many will have no choice but to then accept the sciences, which in turn, forces their hand in rejecting Genesis. -- Rendering their prior belief disproven to them. I just went through this with another interlocutor -- (who was banned and came back under a different name). This explanation also touches on topic (3) below.

differences of culture, language, free will and our desire to justify our beliefs and actions, whether they are right or wrong.

Most of this will be addressed in (1) thru (5).

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

Explained above.

The content of the scene doesn’t matter for this point.

Yes, it does matter. Your given example is an 'amoral' topic and this one is not. An (unnecessary scene) in a movie would still be deemed an 'amoral' topic regardless of if it is later deemed an actual necessary scene or not. However, (unnecessary suffering) would instead be discussed under a 'moral' topic, regardless of if it is later deemed necessary or not.

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

See posts 48, 49, and 50. But to recap, since animals cannot establish a), b), and c) -- (as expressed prior), their suffering looks to be unnecessary. And I doubt such a god would deem unnecessary suffering as a 'good'.

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

[POI]

[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) ?

Yes, the Bible portrays God as all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all-wise (omniscient/wise), but does not use the word 'omni' of course. Verses, such as (Isaiah 40:28), (Revelation 1:8), and (Psalms 139) point to these attributes as infinitely knowledgeable, possessing limitless power, and also possessing ultimate understanding.

[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) ?

Yes, the Bible portrays God as all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all-wise (omniscient/wise), but does not use the word 'omni' of course. Verses, such as (Isaiah 40:28), (Revelation 1:8), and (Psalms 139) point to these attributes as infinitely knowledgeable, possessing limitless power, and also possessing ultimate understanding.

The bible also portrays God as not knowing things and regretting decisions he made.
Genesis 6:6:
Genesis 18:20-21:
Exodus 32:14:
Thus, while it gives the reader choices as to what position they will take on the question, each choice effectively cancels out the other.

Therefore, the best option is to argue that the entity can be said to be way more advanced in knowledge than human beings, but it cannot be said to be literally omniscient.
Also
The natural evidence does not support classical omniscience. It suggests a universe of open-ended becoming. The philosophical problem of motivation further strains the "Omni" concept. Therefore, a more coherent view, aligning both with the biblical narrative and the natural world, is of a supremely powerful, creative, and purposeful - but not exhaustively foreknowing -entity, for whom creation is a dynamic project, not a pre-scripted performance.

Text: The Bible shows God not knowing things and regretting choices.

Logic: One cannot literally be all-knowing and also not know. These portraits cancel each other out.

Evidence: Nature shows trial, error, and suffering - not a pre-scripted plan by an all-knowing micromanager.

Conclusion: The simplest, most coherent view is a supremely powerful, purposeful creator whose knowledge is vast but dynamic, not exhaustively foreknowing. Creation is an open project.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #52]

That video is a devastating satire of the 'Omni-God' plan. The 'why create?' problem is the first logical crack that breaks the model.

My takeaway position is that I must conceive of a creator differently. The evidence (biblical and natural) points away from an exhaustively-foreknowing micromanager and toward a sovereign architect of an open, dynamic creation. This view avoids the video's entire checklist of absurdities, because it doesn't start with the 'infallible certainty' premise that makes the plan look monstrous.

[POI]

Thus, while it gives the reader choices as to what position they will take on the question, each choice effectively cancels out the other.

Then isn't the Bible contradictory? Meaning, in some spots the Bible states he's all-knowing, and in other spots, the Bible states the opposite. You can't logically have both, can you? And if not, then doesn't this violation in logic dismiss the claimed Bible god as a viable 'god' option?

[William]

Thus, while it gives the reader choices as to what position they will take on the question, each choice effectively cancels out the other.

Then isn't the Bible contradictory? Meaning, in some spots the Bible states he's all-knowing, and in other spots, the Bible states the opposite. You can't logically have both, can you? And if not, then doesn't this violation in logic dismiss the claimed Bible god as a viable 'god' option?

As I asked in post #36 "Why would an omni-omni entity create anything?" and why, in Post #51 I clarified and expanded on this question.

A viable God option cannot be an Omni-God so that leaves us with - perhaps what we can call "the other bible option".

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #69]

This response does not look to address my question. Allow me to rephrase. Since the Bible states, in some spot(s), that the Bible god is all-knowing, and in other spot(s), the Bible alternatively states that the Bible god is not all-knowing, isn't this a direct contradiction, which-in-turn is worthy of then dismissing the Bible god as a viable option?