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?'

[POI]

(A working revamp of the argument, based upon our exchange so far):

P1: The Bible God exists
P2: The Bible God has a 'moral compass'
P3: The Bible God has given his 'moral compass' to humans
...(to be continued)...

Yes. Humans intrinsically know that murder is evil, for instance.

You then seemed to argue that wouldn’t this mean that the creation of animal suffering qualifies as something we would intrinsically know if good or evil (your “x)”). That doesn’t logically follow. The existence of some very clear moral assessments doesn’t mean all (or this specific one) is also clear.

My argument here is that a claimed 'omni' god, which still allows for (any/all) suffering of all his created sentient beings, <which does not align with god's <plan(s) or goal(s)>, is 'evil'.

The unanswered question remains... Why do animals have to slowly and torturously kill other animals in the wild just to survive?

You admit the Bible does not really say. You then also offered a 'hunch' answer -- (many responses back). Why must the skeptic consider that the Bible does not say, but that there must be a good reason anyhow? Why not instead just logically add it to the running list of oddities, ultimately leading some skeptics to further doubt the mere existence of this claimed Bible god in the first place?

You then seemed to argue that if it doesn’t qualify, then God would have no right to hold humans accountable for getting that wrong and for incorrectly choosing to not trust the Bible god. If entrance into heaven were about getting all the moral issues right, sure, but that’s not what the Bible says. You enter through realizing that you don’t get them all right and turning to God and out of that heavenly existence, you start to improve on getting the moral issues correct. So, you are held accountable for not trusting God to do something you know you can’t do.

To the parts in bold. "Special pleading" seems to be applied here. Skeptics, like myself, doubt the mere existence of the Bible God. If I'm a flawed human, why MUST I still apply blind faith that the Bible god exists anyways? This will also quickly go into the divine hiddenness argument, for which we could address elsewhere? Again, as I told you from the get-go... For me, this topic is like analyzing the claim(s) to any other work(s) of fiction.

This is shifting your burden. I don’t have to provide and support a (d), you have to show it can only be a, b, c or if a d, e, f are present, why those fail.

But this is only after establishing that the creation of beings who suffer is evil in the first place.

You really seem to be hung up on one sticking point, 'burden'. I'm simply trying to give your prior given hunch some "legs". Why does much of the animal kingdom (HAVE) to tear apart each other's flesh for mere survival -- (absent of theodicy - a,b,c), to achieve the Bible god's goal(s) or plan(s)? Why couldn't God's goal(s) and/or plan(s) for the 'universe' be achieved without (animal predation/etc)?

You have been assuming the Bible’s teachings to be true in order to show an inconsistency or falsehood.

I sometimes read what the Bible says and then try to make logical and consistent sense of some of the things it actually says.

Are you saying you don’t think the Bible teaches the importance of marriage in society now and the results of that (particularly, more humans) populating a loving community called heaven, which is at least one of God’s ultimate goals?

No. I'm asking... Can we humans, being we are given our "moral compass", actually evaluate between 'good' (marriages) verses 'evil' (marriages)?

If your answer is yes, then simply answer the same question, by replacing (marriages) with (suffering). If your answer is instead no, let me know.

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 #131]

Yes, I’m stuck on ‘burden’ because I am trying to be rational. If you want to show your argument to be rational, carry your burden of proof instead of shifting it.

Under your new formulation, P3 is not established. I agree that part of that moral compass is clear to all humans (murder is clearly evil, certain actions within the marriage relationship are clearly evil, such as adultery), but you need the whole moral compass to be clear for this route.

Or you can just establish the moral compass is clear on animal suffering and not everything else. Your latest statement of your argument is that it does so because the creation of animal suffering doesn’t align with God’s plan or goals, but you haven’t supported that.

If I were in your shoes, I’d be rational to be an agnostic on this issue and it wouldn’t come into my fuller consideration concerning whether the Biblical God exists or not.

You then seemed to argue that if it doesn’t qualify, then God would have no right to hold humans accountable for getting that wrong and for incorrectly choosing to not trust the Bible god. If entrance into heaven were about getting all the moral issues right, sure, but that’s not what the Bible says. You enter through realizing that you don’t get them all right and turning to God and out of that heavenly existence, you start to improve on getting the moral issues correct. So, you are held accountable for not trusting God to do something you know you can’t do.

To the parts in bold. "Special pleading" seems to be applied here. Skeptics, like myself, doubt the mere existence of the Bible God. If I'm a flawed human, why apply blind faith that the Bible god exists anyway? This will quickly go into the divine hiddenness argument, for which we could address elsewhere? Again, as I told you from the get-go... For me, this topic is like analyzing the claim(s) to any other work(s) of fiction.

Could you clarify why you think I’m special pleading and asking you to apply blind faith that God exists anyway?

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]

Yes, I’m stuck on ‘burden’ because I am trying to be rational. If you want to show your argument to be rational, carry your burden of proof instead of shifting it.

I'm not trying to shift any burden(s) here Tanager. You are the one stating all possible options need to be ruled out. Well, we both seem to agree that the animal kingdom cannot fulfill (theodicy a, b, or c). I'm now following up on an option you also posed. Is it logical to consider as well? If so, why? But now you instead want to avoid any additional vetting or probing of your given option. Theologians have had countless centuries to figure this particular problem out. Heck, and apparently, some, if not all, also have direct access to simply ask god why he absolutely requires animal predation in his plan(s) or goal(s)? But apparently, he does not answer this question either?

Under your new formulation, P3 is not established.

Under my new formulation, P1 is not established. But I digress....

Are you saying or suggesting that our "moral compass" is not actually provided by the Bible god?

I agree that part of that moral compass is clear to all humans

Why are any of them clear? And if some are clear, and some are not, wouldn't "needless or goalless suffering" be lumped in as one of the clear ones, (especially in the presence of a claimed 'omni' god)?

you can just establish the moral compass is clear on animal suffering and not everything else. Your latest statement of your argument is that it does so because the creation of animal suffering doesn’t align with God’s plan or goals, but you haven’t supported that.

Well, we agree the Bible does not seem to give his "goal(s) list" for the animal kingdom. What we also agree upon, is that animals actually do suffer, just like humans. And yet, we do not know why? I guess this is where we institute 'faith' anyways?

If I were in your shoes, I’d be rational to be an agnostic on this issue and it wouldn’t come into my fuller consideration concerning whether the Biblical God exists or not.

I disagree. It's just yet another example, to add to the running list, as to why the Bible god does not make sense. Can anybody ask the Bible god why animal predation is required to fulfill his plan(s)? If he continues not to answer, then this again challenges the claim(s) to the 'omni' god, and also the claims from the Bible itself.

Could you clarify why you think I’m special pleading and asking you to apply blind faith that God exists anyway?

Because a flawed human may reject the notion of the Bible god, due to 1) lack in evidence and/or 2) lack in being convinced and/or 3) because of 'evil.' The same exact reason(s) humans may miss the mark on any/all other 'moral concerns' in which god cares about. And yet, dire consequences are only applied to the flawed human for making the mistake on this one, and not the others.

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 #133]

I'm not trying to shift any burden(s) here Tanager. You are the one stating all possible options need to be ruled out. Well, we both seem to agree that the animal kingdom cannot fulfill (theodicy a, b, or c). I'm now following up on an option you also posed. Is it logical to consider as well? If so, why? But now you instead want to avoid any additional vetting or probing of your given option. Theologians have had countless centuries to figure this particular problem out. Heck, and apparently, some, if not all, also have direct access to simply ask god why he absolutely requires animal predation in his plan(s) or goal(s)? But apparently, he does not answer this question either?

You gave this premise: 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. You have the burden of showing this premise is true. This premise asserts that if a, b, and/or c is lacking, the creation of animal suffering is gratuitous. For that premise to be true, you have the burden to rule out all other alternatives. This is simple logic.

I’ve informed you of another given theological reason. I’m not avoiding any additional vetting of it or probing. I welcome you to do so. You aren’t asking clarifying questions so that you can then analyze if it is illogical or would still lead to suffering being gratuitous (which is the burden you take on by offering P2). You are instead saying it is my burden to analyze it for us and show it is logical and wouldn’t lead to suffering being gratuitous. That’s shifting the burden. Throwing in the empty rhetoric at the end doesn’t help in a rational analysis of claims either.

But even if you could show that (d) and other possible reasons do not get to join a, b, and c, you would still need to support P1, that the creation of animal suffering is not only gratuitous, but gratuitous evil.

Are you saying or suggesting that our "moral compass" is not actually provided by the Bible god?

I’m saying God provides it, but that it can get drowned out by other voices and desires and complexities except for a few clear things such as murder.

I agree that part of that moral compass is clear to all humans

Why are any of them clear?

Because some things in life aren’t complex enough to get muddied up by other voices, desires, etc.

And if some are clear, and some are not, wouldn't "needless or goalless suffering" be lumped in as one of the clear ones, (especially in the presence of a claimed 'omni' god)?

You haven’t shown it is needless/goalless, but even if you could you still have the burden to show it would be evil.

Well, we agree the Bible does not seem to give his "goal(s) list" for the animal kingdom. What we also agree upon, is that animals actually do suffer, just like humans. And yet, we do not know why? I guess this is where we institute 'faith' anyways?

There are more sources of truth than the Bible. You can turn to what you call “faith”, but I’m not going to. Please support your claim or let’s move on.

If I were in your shoes, I’d be rational to be an agnostic on this issue and it wouldn’t come into my fuller consideration concerning whether the Biblical God exists or not.

I disagree. It's just yet another example, to add to the running list, as to why the Bible god does not make sense. Can anybody ask the Bible god why animal predation is required to fulfill his plan(s)? If he continues not to answer, then this again challenges the claim(s) to the 'omni' god, and also the claims from the Bible itself.

Why is God not answering every question with unmistakable clarity a good reason to believe He doesn’t exist?

As to the “running list”, your example must be sound for that list to be a rational one. We obviously disagree on the soundness of your argument here. When you are ready to rest your case, I’d be happy to make a positive claim in the other direction and offer the reasons I am not currently agnostic on this issue (or move on to one of the other topics). Like I said earlier, I think conversations focused on one claim at a time are more helpful.

Could you clarify why you think I’m special pleading and asking you to apply blind faith that God exists anyway?

Because a flawed human may reject the notion of the Bible god, due to 1) lack in evidence and/or 2) lack in being convinced and/or 3) because of 'evil.' The same exact reason(s) humans may miss the mark on any/all other 'moral concerns' in which god cares about. And yet, dire consequences are only applied to the flawed human for making the mistake on this one, and not the others.

You’d have a ton of work to do to establish (1). What does “lack in being convinced” mean that is different than not being convinced because of a lack in evidence? And what do you mean that humans reject God because of 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]

You gave this premise: 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. You have the burden of showing this premise is true. This premise asserts that if a, b, and/or c is lacking, the creation of animal suffering is gratuitous. For that premise to be true, you have the burden to rule out all other alternatives. This is simple logic.

I’ve informed you of another given theological reason. I’m not avoiding any additional vetting of it or probing. I welcome you to do so. You aren’t asking clarifying questions so that you can then analyze if it is illogical or would still lead to suffering being gratuitous (which is the burden you take on by offering P2). You are instead saying it is my burden to analyze it for us and show it is logical and wouldn’t lead to suffering being gratuitous. That’s shifting the burden. Throwing in the empty rhetoric at the end doesn’t help in a rational analysis of claims either.

To the bold... I have asked, several times. Here are a couple of questions, rephrased:

1) In order for the Bible god to achieve his goal(s) and plan(s) for the "universe", why must some of the animal kingdom be required be tear apart the flesh of the rest of the animal kingdom for mere survival?
2) Would it be possible for the Bible god to achieve the same goal(s) and plan(s), while rendering the animal kingdom herbivores, (and/or) lacking any necessity to eat at all? If not, why not?

To the bold... I'm trying to keep this light, as I earnestly have no personal vested interest here... Because again, it's like analyzing the script/play of Stars Wars. If P1, (in my recent reply), were actually demonstrated, I'd instead likely be on your side, --> (trying to <justify or rationalize> why god's plan MUST involve sentient animals tearing the flesh of sentient animal, inducing a slow and agonizing death).

But even if you could show that (d) and other possible reasons do not get to join a, b, and c, you would still need to support P1, that the creation of animal suffering is not only gratuitous, but gratuitous evil.

<and>

Because some things in life aren’t complex enough to get muddied up by other voices, desires, etc.

Well, you state some action(s) are more-so obviously 'evil'. I'd say this observation makes the 'more-so obvious' list. Which is exactly why Christian apologetics has spent a fair amount of time trying to defend it.

I’m saying God provides it, but that it can get drowned out by other voices and desires and complexities except for a few clear things such as murder.

I must reiterate a point I made many responses ago. In that, 'deep down', we all know what is right/wrong, good/bad, good/evil, when observing all deemed "moral actions". Whether we say it out loud, or not, is another issue. Case/point, the 'denying person' could label an action as a 'justified killing', verses an actual murder. But deep down, that individual really knows it was still murder in actual reality. According to your worldview, all these (voices and desires) are from 'evil.'

In this case, why is the observance of a parasite, feasting on sentient and living animal flesh, until their slow and agonizing death prevails, not actuall considered 'evil'? What unwanted (voices and desires) are clouding the otherwise clear "god given moral compass", which would instead tell the human that this suffering is necessary?

You haven’t shown it is needless/goalless,

You also haven't shown that (voices and desires) are clouding the "moral compass" on this otherwise seemingly obvious observation, like that of the others you freely just assert, (without further rationale), that are just obvious.

but even if you could you still have the burden to show it would be evil.

An 'omni' god would care about the <wellbeing> of all his created sentient agents.

Why is God not answering every question with unmistakable clarity a good reason to believe He doesn’t exist?

Does god care about clear communication? (yes) Does god state he will answer the call, especially to those who seek his direct guidance? (yes) Do many in earnest, who seek his direct guidance, get conflicting answers to the same exact questions? (yes)

Without more probing, common sense suggests that maybe the Bible god has instead been imaginary all along?

You’d have a ton of work to do to establish (1). What does “lack in being convinced” mean that is different than not being convinced because of a lack in evidence? And what do you mean that humans reject God because of evil?

Let's 'table' this, for now, as it bleeds into the running list below...

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 #135]

To the bold... I have asked, several times. Here are a couple of questions, rephrased:

1) In order for the Bible god to achieve his goal(s) and plan(s) for the "universe", why must some of the animal kingdom be required be tear apart the flesh of the rest of the animal kingdom for mere survival?
2) Would it be possible for the Bible god to achieve the same goal(s) and plan(s), while rendering the animal kingdom herbivores, (and/or) lacking any necessity to eat at all? If not, why not?

Just because it is a question doesn’t mean you aren’t shifting the burden. The question under discussion that you have made a claim about is: “is there some good reason for God to create animal suffering?”. You claim there isn’t a good reason. This question clearly shifts the burden from you supporting that claim to asking me to support the opposite claim and provide the good reason.

Well, you state some action(s) are more-so obviously 'evil'. I'd say this observation makes the 'more-so obvious' list.

Okay, but now support why you think it makes the ‘more-so obvious’ list, so I have reasons to engage with.

I must reiterate a point I made many responses ago. In that, 'deep down', we all know what is right/wrong, good/bad, good/evil, when observing all deemed "moral actions". Whether we say it out loud, or not, is another issue. Case/point, the 'denying person' could label an action as a 'justified killing', verses an actual murder. But deep down, that individual really knows it was still murder in actual reality. According to your worldview, all these (voices and desires) are from 'evil.'

In this case, why is the observance of a parasite, feasting on sentient and living animal flesh, until their slow and agonizing death prevails, not actuall considered 'evil'? What unwanted (voices and desires) are clouding the otherwise clear "god given moral compass", which would instead tell the human that this suffering is necessary?

I’ll reiterate my response to that point: this isn’t an argument but simply stating “come on, you know I’m right” and then using rhetorical language to make it seem more obvious rather than providing any rational support.

An 'omni' god would care about the <wellbeing> of all his created sentient agents.

Yes. Is well-being identical to complete comfort (i.e., a lack of any suffering)? It needs to be for your argument to go through, so support this latest reformulation instead of just continuing to reformulate things.

Does god care about clear communication? (yes) Does god state he will answer the call, especially to those who seek his direct guidance? (yes) Do many in earnest, who seek his direct guidance, get conflicting answers to the same exact questions? (yes)

Without more probing, common sense suggests that maybe the Bible god has instead been imaginary all along?

Sure, if you settle for limited, surface probing, but that’s not a rational thing to settle for.

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]

Just because it is a question doesn’t mean you aren’t shifting the burden. The question under discussion that you have made a claim about is: “is there some good reason for God to create animal suffering?”.

Why are you so afraid to engage here? You must assume that a) 'good' and b) 'goal oriented' reason(s) both exist, as to why the animal kingdom MUST tear each other apart for mere survival. I'm simply asking what these 'good' and 'goal oriented' reason(s) could possibly be? If you merely shrug your shoulders, and state something to the effect of..."I don't know what these reasons(s) actually are, but they must be 'good' and 'goal oriented' regardless," while also having access to simply ask Him yourself -- (as the Bible also suggests), then what is the skeptic supposed to actually take away from this exchange?

You claim there isn’t a good reason. This question clearly shifts the burden from you supporting that claim to asking me to support the opposite claim and provide the good reason.

The fact that you (cannot or will not) engage the 2) questions, tells me that you likely cannot locate any 'good' reason(s) either. But there MUST be 'good' reason(s) anyways; but the Bible just doesn't say. Nor is god willing to actually tell everyone, in a consistent way either, to put this topic to bed.

(Rephrased):

1) In order to achieve god's goal(s), why MUST the animal kingdom also be required to tear one another apart -- in a slow and painful way?
2) Couldn't god's goals and plans have been achieved by either making the animal kingdom herbivores, or even yet, not having animals required to consume anything at all for survival? If not, why not?

Okay, but now support why you think it makes the ‘more-so obvious’ list, so I have reasons to engage with.

Taking a direct page from your book... (.e.) "Because some things in life aren’t complex enough to get muddied up by other voices, desires, etc.".

I’ll reiterate my response to that point: this isn’t an argument but simply stating “come on, you know I’m right” and then using rhetorical language to make it seem more obvious rather than providing any rational support.

I ask again, since you are completely avoiding it... Exactly what unwanted (voices and desires) are clouding the otherwise clear "god given moral compass", which (would/should) instead tell me that the observance of a parasite feasting slowly upon an animal host is 'good'? Inquiring minds want to know? Why am I actually mistaken to think this action is instead "bad or evil"?

Yes. Is well-being identical to complete comfort (i.e., a lack of any suffering)?

No.

It needs to be for your argument to go through, so support this latest reformulation instead of just continuing to reformulate things.

I thought we already fleshed all this out long ago.... Exercise, necessary surgery, dieting, etc, while not synonymous with comfort, are for the sentient agent's over-all wellbeing. Now all you need to do, is to demonstrate why an 'omni' god's plan for his sentient creations, ALSO requires the necessity to be eaten alive?

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 #137]

I’m not afraid to engage, I simply dislike it when somebody makes a claim and then instead of supporting that tries to make their opponent make and defend a counter claim as though, if they can’t do that, their initial claim is supported and so I’m calling you on that. I don’t like games, whether intentional or not. I already said that when you were done with your case, I’d be happy to present the reasons I am not an agnostic on this issue. Are you done with your case?

The skeptic should take away from this exchange that either you were able to make a positive case for your claim or you weren’t. If they think you weren’t, then they should be agnostic on this issue even if they remain unconvinced by my case, if you are ready to focus on that.

Or we can move on to one of the other things you were wanting to talk about.

[POI]

I’m not afraid to engage

In all honesty Tanager, you could have fooled me. I've politely asked, several times, to answer the repeated (2) questions.

I simply dislike it when

Speaking of mentioning things we dislike... I do not like it when Christian interlocutors attempt to muddy the otherwise very clear waters. In this particular case, some observations are obvious, unmuddied by those (voices and desires). Case/point, a plain reading of the OT tells the reader, in many spots, that such a god instructs acts of 'evil' -- when it commands genocide, infanticide, rape, other... But of course, the Christhian apologist will instead use the same argument(s), in that voices and desires cloud our otherwise true judgment, or that we are illiterate and reading the command(s) out of context. Anything to defend the Bible god!

As we observe countless actions in life, we make personal assessments as to whether or not those actions are 'moral' or not. Sure, we may have differing views on many actions, but in other cases, many are obvious. Well, a slow and agonizing death, by parasite, looks to be just as obviously "evil" as witnessing a rape, or a witnessed murder. Maybe it's those pesky voices and desires clouding my judgement? Or maybe I'm just being gaslit. Who really knows?..?. My given argument attempts to demonstrate that the witnessed countless goalless (and/or) unnecessary suffering of the animal/other kingdom is pointless, under the Christian worldview. And therefore, I MUST be reading Genesis wrong. The beauty about the displayed ambiguity of the Bible, is that apologists can launch all sorts of 'what ifs.'

I don’t like games, whether intentional or not. I already said that when you were done with your case, I’d be happy to present the reasons I am not an agnostic on this issue. Are you done with your case?

Not playing games.... And I see games, or shenanigans here, when I repeatedly ask you questions for which you still have not answered. So I will politely keep asking:

1) In order for the Bible god to achieve his goal(s) and plan(s) for the "universe", why must some of the animal kingdom be required to tear apart the flesh of the rest of the animal kingdom for mere survival?

2) Would it be possible for the Bible god to achieve the same goal(s) and plan(s), while rendering the animal kingdom herbivores, (and/or) lacking any necessity to eat at all? If not, why not?

The skeptic should take away from this exchange that either you were able to make a positive case for your claim or you weren’t.

It's as clear as day, that I have and am able to support my position. An 'omni' good would consider the wellbeing of all his sentient creation. Pointless suffering is 'evil' and serves no necessary purpose to fulfill an 'omni' god's plans, who is not only the game player, but also the game maker -- (this points to the (2) repeated unanswered questions above). This god either knowingly created such suffering, because (1) he likes to watch it - (which contradicts the claim(s) to 'omni' status), or (2) is not truly 'omni' after all - (but you believe he is 'omni'), or (3) he does not want to reveal his actual plans for why the animal kingdom must suffer - (even though the Bible tells us god answers prayer requests), or maybe (4) this god does not exist after all, and "nature" is just nature. In applying Occam's Razor, my hunch points to (4).

Or we can move on to one of the other things you were wanting to talk about.

I want you to tell me what I'm missing. You have, so far, refused to do that. Why MUST the animal kingdom suffer, which only appears pointless and unnecessary to me? If you are filled with the "holy spirit", you can easily answer this question.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #139]

Just to ask for clarity - you wrote here "Why MUST the animal kingdom suffer, which only appears pointless and unnecessary to me?" when before did you not claim it was "evil"?

Did I miss something and have you already changed from EVIL to "pointless and unnecessary" as your answer to Tanagers questioning your claim that God is evil for permitting animals to suffer?