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?'

[alexxcJRO]

This still assumes that suffering in itself is evil, which you are only asserting, please support that premise to move your argument forward.

Nonsense.
Term Evil is just a term. It is irrelevant if the term disappears from discussion entirely.
I can easy call it just the "Evidential Problem of certain kinds of Great Sufferings".

GS = certain kinds of great sufferings

You cannot but admit such things as GS exist objectively and make existence extremely miserably to the point non-existence is preferable to existence.

In a reality with an omni, super loving, caring, personal God we would expect at least some interventions to help his beloved created creatures from this certain kinds of great sufferings.

the omni-god being omniscient knows how to make such GS to not manifest/go away in an instant.
the omni-god being omnipotent can make such GS to not manifest/go away in an instant.
the omni-god being omnibenevolent(super duper loving, super duper caring, super duper personal) would want to help his beloved creatures and care for them.
Nothing of the sort happens. GS sufferings exists and have existed for hundreds of millions of years.
Ergo omni-god is most likely non-existent.

I’ve already said how I think that logic is flawed since marriage is a very good thing, yet not in heaven according to the Bible.

Nonsense.
Theoretically some good things do not exist in Heaven but good/very good things exist in general.
Zero suffering in Heaven would point logically that there is some problem with having a blissful existence together with suffering and maybe it is not a good thing and/or necessary.

[311]

@alexxcJRO

You said: "Term Evil is just a term."
___________________________

"Jew" & "Antisemite" are just terms, too?

Calling oneself a "Jew" places you higher than all that is in heaven & on earth.

Being called an "Antisemite" will cost you your career, life savings, & reputation.

#

Let's not pretend that God is running this world, shall we?

#

@alexxcJRO

you said: "Theoretically some good things do not exist in Heaven but good/very good things exist in general. Zero suffering in Heaven would point logically that there is some problem with having a blissful existence together with suffering and maybe it is not a good thing and/or necessary."

L*nd of M*lk & honey?
I mean, c'mon. The entire punchline of the Bible is an orgy (ie. Heaven)

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #100]

But does (animals/insects/other) need the inclusion of <perpetual fear, or actually directly experiencing being eaten alive>, to achieve joyful things in life?

Animals do not experience perpetual fear, but fear is a part of this reality. And so is the suffering of being eaten alive along with other sufferings. It is still your burden to show that suffering in itself is evil.

Well, this circles us right back to (P2) of my given argument. Traditionally, Christian theology has held that animals are incapable of experiencing the moral, spiritual, or intellectual growth that human "soul-making" theodicy often claims justifies such suffering. Which is the reason humans are argued to experience suffering. Is your position that (animals/insects/other) can achieve "theodicy" too?

No, my position is that suffering in itself is not necessarily evil, so there doesn’t need to be a justification for it.

P1) Your "god given moral compass" tells you that gratuitous suffering is immoral. -- (If "evil" did not exist, we'd all know/agree).
P2) God created conscious animals which suffer, while lacking the given theological reason(s) for suffering --<via a), b), and/or c)>, which renders their suffering <outside of the possibility of achieving a), b), and/or c)> gratuitous. - (I still do not see why animals have to eat at all, let alone eat other animals at all in relation to the topic of joy verses suffering)?
P3) Therefore, creating conscious animals, who suffer without having the ability in achieving <a), b), and/or c)> is immoral.

I’m not doubting that evil exists, but that our god-given moral compass tells us that the creation of beings who can and will suffer is evil.

I'm merely asking you to explain your choice, for more clarity. For instance, choice 3) states both situational or neither - (which means neither good or evil). Care to explain which of these two you have selected and why?

I think the creation of beings who can suffer is neither, while the infliction of suffering on other beings is situational.

Any (position/thought/opinion) contrary to what god deems as good. As I stated prior, Jesus was sent to earth and was tempted by "evil", and was apparently the only one to be 100% successful in avoiding all 'evil'. What I'm saying is that if 'evil' was removed, we would always align with our "god given moral compass". Hence, when you say ("we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision"), these are all the works of the presence of 'evil'.

Okay, I agree with that. How does that support that our god-given moral compass tells us that the creation of animal suffering is evil?

Or it may all be wishful thinking, as you admit you cannot back it up.

I admitted the Bible doesn’t directly address the question, but I have been backing up my views.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #101]

Nonsense.
Term Evil is just a term. It is irrelevant if the term disappears from discussion entirely.
I can easy call it just the "Evidential Problem of certain kinds of Great Sufferings".

GS = certain kinds of great sufferings

You cannot but admit such things as GS exist objectively and make existence extremely miserably to the point non-existence is preferable to existence.

Yes, GS exists objectively, but I disagree that God not creating is better than creating a world with GS. You have to support your claim, however you want to word it.

Zero suffering in Heaven would point logically that there is some problem with having a blissful existence together with suffering and maybe it is not a good thing and/or necessary.

That doesn’t follow. Zero marriage in heaven does not show marriage was maybe not a good thing.

[POI]

Animals do not experience perpetual fear, but fear is a part of this reality. And so is the suffering of being eaten alive along with other sufferings

Some animals do experience perpetual fear, while awake. Namely, some of the ones which are not on top of the food chain. Animals that live in a "landscape of fear," constantly exposed to predation risk, are generally herbivores, small mammals, and ground-nesting birds, which must maintain on high vigilance to survive -- (virtually 24/7). Alternatively, the top of the 'food chain' does not. Does this mean the ones on the top of the food chain, in regard to the predator/prey relationship, cannot experience 'joy'?

It is still your burden to show that suffering in itself is evil.

That is not my argument. My argument is instead that <gratuitous/unnecessary> suffering is 'evil'. And thus far, I have not received a logical explanation as to why animals must suffer at all? Especially since you seem to agree there exists an 'omni' god in the mix?

No, my position is that suffering in itself is not necessarily evil, so there doesn’t need to be a justification for it.

Again, my pushback isn't just about suffering, but instead unnecessary suffering. (P2) gives (3) theological reasons as for why suffering exists. Animals achieve none of them. Hence, logic dictates their suffering is then unnecessary. And our moral compass tells us that unnecessary suffering is immoral. Therefore, why is it still absolutely necessary for the (animals/insect/other) kingdom to suffer? As a prelude, I've already expressed that animals do not necessarily need to 1) eat at all (and/or) 2) have to be meat eaters. Why must animals need to 1) eat at all, (and/or) further, 2) some be meat eaters, while under the reigns of an 'omni' god?

Okay, I agree with that.

How does that support that our god-given moral compass tells us that the creation of animal suffering is evil?

Again, my current position is that animal suffering is gratuitous. And gratuitous suffering is 'evil'.

I admitted the Bible doesn’t directly address the question,

but I have been backing up my views.

This remains to be scene.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #105]

Some animals do experience perpetual fear, while awake. Namely, some of the ones which are not on top of the food chain. Animals that live in a "landscape of fear," constantly exposed to predation risk, are generally herbivores, small mammals, and ground-nesting birds, which must maintain on high vigilance to survive -- (virtually 24/7). Alternatively, the top of the 'food chain' does not. Does this mean the ones on the top of the food chain, in regard to the predator/prey relationship, cannot experience 'joy'?

My point was that “perpetual” was overstating it; “virtually 24/7” is still overstating it, but that’s irrelevant. You still have the burden of showing that suffering in itself (whatever level of suffering exists) is evil.

That is not my argument. My argument is instead that <gratuitous/unnecessary> suffering is 'evil'. And thus far, I have not received a logical explanation as to why animals must suffer at all? Especially since you seem to agree there exists an 'omni' god in the mix?

Okay, then it is your burden to show that gratuituous/unnecessary suffering is evil. You not receiving a logical explanation that proves you wrong doesn’t carry your burden to support your claim.

Again, my pushback isn't just about suffering, but instead unnecessary suffering. (P2) gives (3) theological reasons as for why suffering exists. Animals achieve none of them. Hence, logic dictates their suffering is then unnecessary. And our moral compass tells us that unnecessary suffering is immoral. Therefore, why is it still absolutely necessary for the (animals/insect/other) kingdom to suffer? As a prelude, I've already expressed that animals do not necessarily need to 1) eat at all (and/or) 2) have to be meat eaters. Why must animals need to 1) eat at all, (and/or) further, 2) some be meat eaters, while under the reigns of an 'omni' god?

P2 isn’t a complete list of why suffering exists, so your conclusion doesn’t logically follow. And our moral compass does not tell us that unnecessary suffering is immoral (you just keep asserting P1 instead of supporting it).

How does that support that our god-given moral compass tells us that the creation of animal suffering is evil?

Again, my current position is that animal suffering is gratuitous. And gratuitous suffering is 'evil'.

Okay, how does any position contrary to what God views on the moral issue being ‘evil’, support that the creation of animal suffering (which is logically gratuitous) is evil?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[POI]

My point was that “perpetual” was overstating it; “virtually 24/7” is still overstating it, but that’s irrelevant.

Can apex predators achieve the same level(s) of joy as their prey? If so, then fear, (perpetual or partial), of being eaten alive, (or), actually being eaten alive and suffering a slow and agonizing demise is logically unnecessary <under your Christian worldview>. If apex predators cannot achieve the same level(s) of joy as their prey, you need to explain why?

You still have the burden of showing that suffering in itself (whatever level of suffering exists) is evil.

I already did, multiple times. Under your worldview, we have inherited god's moral compass. And god deems gratuitous suffering 'evil'. He only deems necessary suffering 'good'. And theologically speaking, there exists (3) reasons for necessary suffering.

Okay, then it is your burden to show that gratuituous/unnecessary suffering is evil.

Again, I already have. Just like, under your Christian worldview, murder, rape, and theft are 'evil'. Whether or not it is written as a direct commandment, god gives you your "moral compass" -- which means you already inherently know these activities are 'evil.'

You not receiving a logical explanation that proves you wrong doesn’t carry your burden to support your claim.

What it does mean, is that I can effectively rule your given option (4) out. See my reply directly below...

P2 isn’t a complete list of why suffering exists, so your conclusion doesn’t logically follow.

Yes, it is. Your added option (4) is illogical. And you believe god is logical. Under your given added argument, to my (P2), predators cannot receive as much joy as prey. Further, god forbids humans to kill other humans for food, which eliminates the fear of being eaten immensely. And yet, we still can experience vast amounts of joy without fear or the experience of predation. Unless you instead want to argue that 'cavemen', or humans in the unprotected wild experience more joy than modern and protected human civilization(s)?

And our moral compass does not tell us that unnecessary suffering is immoral (you just keep asserting P1 instead of supporting it).

Since you believe god gives us our moral compass, and this moral compass would completely reveal itself in absence of 'evil', then your moral compass would certainly state whether or not gratuitous suffering is "good" or "bad." Just like it does for the aforementioned topics of murder, rape, theft, etc, without ever even having to read the Bible for guidance.

Okay, how does any position contrary to what God views on the moral issue being ‘evil’, support that the creation of animal suffering (which is logically gratuitous) is evil?

Because a), b) and c) of (P2) is not achieved.

You never answered my repeated question... Can animals experience "theodicy"? If so, prove it. And if you cannot prove it, your given argument seems to fall apart.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #107]

On P1

You still have the burden of showing that suffering in itself (whatever level of suffering exists) is evil.

I already did, multiple times. Under your worldview, we have inherited god's moral compass. And god deems gratuitous suffering 'evil'. He only deems necessary suffering 'good'. And theologically speaking, there exists (3) reasons for necessary suffering.

No, under my worldview, we have not inherited god’s moral compass; I’ve told you this multiple times.

Since you believe god gives us our moral compass, and this moral compass would completely reveal itself in absence of 'evil', then your moral compass would certainly state whether or not gratuitous suffering is "good" or "bad." Just like it does for the aforementioned topics of murder, rape, theft, etc, without ever even having to read the Bible for guidance.

‘Evil’ is not absent in us.


On P2

Can apex predators achieve the same level(s) of joy as their prey? If so, then fear, (perpetual or partial), of being eaten alive, (or), actually being eaten alive and suffering a slow and agonizing demise is logically unnecessary <under your Christian worldview>. If apex predators cannot achieve the same level(s) of joy as their prey, you need to explain why?

Apex predators still experience fear and suffering, so I don’t see how this helps anything. And, once again, just showing something is unnecessary is not enough since some things that are unnecessary are still good (such as marriage).

Yes, it is. Your added option (4) is illogical. And you believe god is logical. Under your given added argument, to my (P2), predators cannot receive as much joy as prey. Further, god forbids humans to kill other humans for food, which eliminates the fear of being eaten immensely. And yet, we still can experience vast amounts of joy without fear or the experience of predation. Unless you instead want to argue that 'cavemen', or humans in the unprotected wild experience more joy than modern and protected human civilization(s)?

That was not my argument at all. Predators still experience fear and suffering, first of all. I also didn’t claim there was a direct proportion of fear and joy. My alternative to your 3 options in P2 was that all feasible worlds (with free will and other goals God has) may be worlds with suffering.

Okay, how does any position contrary to what God views on the moral issue being ‘evil’, support that the creation of animal suffering (which is logically gratuitous) is evil?

Because a), b) and c) of (P2) is not achieved.

You never answered my repeated question... Can animals experience "theodicy"? If so, prove it. And if you cannot prove it, your given argument seems to fall apart.

I have answered this repeatedly. You have not established your trilemma as sound.


Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[POI]

No, under my worldview, we have not inherited god’s moral compass; I’ve told you this multiple times.

Then how are we humans supposed to know what is actually right/wrong, joyous/evil, moral/immoral?

‘Evil’ is not absent in us.

I know, this is why you get to state -- ("we have personal agendas and desires and we try to justify it and twist principles to make what we feel we want in the moment to be the right decision"). For which I stated -- ("What I'm saying is that if 'evil' was removed, we would always align with our "god given moral compass"). In which you stated you agree in post 103.

Apex predators still experience fear and suffering, so I don’t see how this helps anything.

Joy can still be <just as> achieved without <any> fear of predation.

And, once again, just showing something is unnecessary is not enough since some things that are unnecessary are still good (such as marriage).

This topic is not here to argue for what is 'gratuitously good', but instead, 'gratuitously evil'. If it were the former, you may have a point.

Predators still experience fear and suffering, first of all. I also didn’t claim there was a direct proportion of fear and joy. My alternative to your 3 options in P2 was that all feasible worlds (with free will and other goals God has) may be worlds with suffering.

But is the fear of predation necessary to achieve joy in any of them? If not, then isn't it, by logic, unnecessary?

I have answered this repeatedly.

Then I continue to miss it? Can animals experience theodicy? If so, prove it.

You have not established your trilemma as sound.

I beg to differ.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(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)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[alexxcJRO]

Yes, GS exists objectively, but I disagree that God not creating is better than creating a world with GS. You have to support your claim, however you want to word it.

I have supported my claim sir.

There is a contradiction between a supposed omni God that is super loving, caring, personal yet we see he does not care for his created creatures for they suffer immensely yet he does not bother to help.

It is like this:
I am apparently an orphan but someone tells me I supposedly have a super loving, caring parent(father). I write to him to help me with an egregious problem I have. I write to him years upon years. Not only I do not receive any help he does not even bother to reply.
Is it fair for me to conclude: Either he does not exist or he does not care if he exists. And the claims of me having a super duper loving, caring parent(father) are unsubstantiated.

That doesn’t follow. Zero marriage in heaven does not show marriage was maybe not a good thing.

Nonsense.

We have been over this already:
Analogy does not work for good things exist in Heaven. Not all good things exist in Heaven.
We have some good things that do not exist in Heaven vs zero suffering exists in Heaven.

It does follow that there might be a problem with suffering as part of a blissful existence.
Q: If suffering is such an integral part of existence why does none exist in Heaven?