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]

[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?

Yes, you missed something. Near the bottom of this response, I stated "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."

I'm exploring this as we go. I've never delved into the subtle nuances, regarding the allowance of flesh-eating in this manner too much before. As I told Tanager, it's like studying the script of Star Wars. I have no personal vested interest per say... However, in our organic exchange, this is why I posed (4) options for consideration at the end of my last response.

However, on a side note, wouldn't a <claimed> 'omni' god, which instead knowingly allows for pointless and unnecessary suffering, be the actual antithesis of a claimed 'omni' god? And wouldn't the existence of that god, in reality, be 'evil'?

[alexxcJRO]

If I said “starting off one’s post with ‘I bet’” is a problem, you’d probably want to know why it qualifies as a problem before accepting any conclusions I made off of it being a problem, right? You would disagree with my claim and you wouldn’t accept an answer of “it’s obvious” as an adequate or rational response. So, until you can show why the creation of beings who suffer at all is a problem, you’ve got no argument for me to respond to.

Please stop avoiding like the plague. Please address the analogy.

If hell is the eternal conscious torment view, then I agree with you that there is lots of suffering in hell at the bequest of God, but I don’t think the Bible teaches that view. If hell is annihilation, then suffering doesn’t exist as those beings would cease to exist and non-existent things can’t suffer. If hell is a state of existence, then I believe all suffering is self-inflicted and possibly inflicted by people on each other of their own will.

God is responsible for the extreme forms of suffering that exist in the omniverse.
God is responsible for the extreme forms of suffering that exist in Hell. God created Heaven and the conditions so there is no suffering in it while also God created Hell and the conditions so there is extreme suffering there.


God is responsible for the extreme forms of suffering that exist in the omniverse.
God is responsible for the extreme forms of suffering that exist in Hell. God created Heaven and the conditions so there is no suffering in it while also God created Hell and the conditions so there is extreme suffering there.

Bible clearly portraits eternal torment:
"Then he will say... ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’."
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night..."
"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #139]

I have made my case against your positive claim and I’ll let it stand since you haven’t said anything new there. I’ll go ahead and now make my positive counter claim for those interested. If the skeptic is not convinced by either of our cases, then they should be an agnostic on whether the creation of animal suffering is good or not and look to other issues to decide the theism/atheism question in their mind.

Here is my initial sketch:

First, I think the creation of animal suffering could only be evil if theism is true because I don’t think atheistic worldviews can rationally ground good and evil as objective truths. Thus, even bringing up this issue is a signpost towards the existence of God. This God could be evil, however, so we’ve got to go further.

Second, I think suffering is a feature of conscious systems and, therefore, the creation of systems that involve conscious creatures will necessarily involve some kind of suffering. If that is true, then what distinguishes experiencing that suffering physically versus mentally and make one category of suffering (such as the creation of carnivores) inherently evil and another not? I see no reason to distinguish the creation of carnivores as an inherently evil kind of suffering to create.

Third, this doesn’t mean we welcome and celebrate and pursue suffering for ourselves and others in themselves. We should strive to limit suffering

[POI]

First, I think the creation of animal suffering could only be evil if theism is true because I don’t think atheistic worldviews can rationally ground good and evil as objective truths.

Here is where wordplay comes into the equation. Even under your worldview, 'moral' assessments are still subjective. Why? Subjective information is based on personal feelings, opinions, interpretations, and biases, making it unique to an individual's perspective. In contrast, objective information is based on cold, hard facts, evidence, and measurable data, which remains true regardless of personal feelings or beliefs. Hence, you are merely kicking the same can down the road, as your worldview appeals to the whims, personal tastes, opinions, and interpretations of your claimed invisible sky god.

I would assume your believed upon god cares about the wellbeing of his creation? For all intents and purposes, (wellbeing) might as well just be directly interchanged with the term (morality), in that both terms look to uphold the welfare of their sentient agents. And if (wellbeing) is the rubric or standard for 'good morality', then we can objectively assess if the (wellbeing) of these created agents is actually being accommodated.

Well, here lies the question(s), deliberately unanswered, repeatedly:

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?

Thus, even bringing up this issue is a signpost towards the existence of God. This God could be evil, however, so we’ve got to go further.

No. Subjectivity is still established -- if all you have to offer are the expressed concerns of an invisible sky fairy, which-in-turn, hands off his own moral concerns to us. Again, if (wellbeing) is the objective or goal, we can make objective assessments against (wellbeing), to see if the allowed upon action(s) align and retain the actual (wellbeing) of these apparent created sentient agents.

Second, I think suffering is a feature of conscious systems

I disagree. Consciousness existed, without suffering, prior to "the fall". The majority of Biblical scholars argue that Romans 5:12, ("sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin") indicates that both human and animal suffering, along with death, began only after "the fall". In this view, Eden was a perfect, painless environment. But of course, you will offer pushback here -- because you cannot allow for this reality to be true in your argument.

The same book also asserts that suffering will again no longer exist if one is chosen and goes to Heaven. Hence, you can apparently be conscious without suffering regardless.
.

Third, this doesn’t mean we welcome and celebrate and pursue suffering for ourselves and others in themselves. We should strive to limit suffering

Still awaiting answers to the (2) unanswered questions.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #142]

I felt like my response had clear implications for your analogy. I think the foundation you are working from in asking these questions is limiting you from hearing God’s replies. I think God cares more deeply about your close relative and the suffering they are having to endure than anyone else. I think that is part of having an environment with conscious beings and that making such an environment so is better than non-existence. Your close relative still has lots of value and can experience peace in the midst of that suffering as the Christian God is the One who suffered for us and suffers with us, even if that suffering isn’t fully taken away.

The Bible does not clearly portray conscious eternal torment. Hebrews 6:2 talks about God’s act of judgment being eternal, but no one thinks this is saying His act of judgment will go on forever. Hebrews 9:12 talks about Jesus’ act of redeeming us being eternal, but no one thinks Jesus’ redeeming act goes on forever, otherwise we would never be fully redeemed. Jude 1:7 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah suffering eternal fire, but the fires were not still burning in Jude’s day. The effects are eternal, not the fire itself. That’s what we see in Matthew 13:41 and 25:41, which you quote. The weeds that are collected and burned would be destroyed in that analogy, not exist within the fire forever. Rev 14:11 draws on an ancient image of smoke for destruction rather than ongoing torment (such as in Gen 19:28 and Isaiah 34:9-10).

But even if my understanding of those is wrong, those passages do not speak of God doing the tormenting. God is willing for all to come to life, but He won’t force it. Those that will not come would, if they do not cease to exist, would either be continuing to harm each other or become so isolated and inward focused that the torment is of their own making.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #144]

Here is where wordplay comes into the equation. Even under your worldview, 'moral' assessments are still subjective. Why? Subjective information is based on personal feelings, opinions, interpretations, and biases, making it unique to an individual's perspective. In contrast, objective information is based on cold, hard facts, evidence, and measurable data, which remains true regardless of personal feelings or beliefs. Hence, you are merely kicking the same can down the road, as your worldview appeals to the whims, personal tastes, opinions, and interpretations of your claimed invisible sky god.

Why do you think you understand my view on how morality is grounded? Morality isn’t grounded in God’s opinions on the matter. If God created humans and animals with their specific natures and put in humans a moral purpose to seek the good of others, if He then changed His mind and decided murder was going to be okay, that wouldn’t change what was moral. The act of creation is what grounds morality.

I disagree. Consciousness existed, without suffering, prior to "the fall". The majority of Biblical scholars argue that Romans 5:12, ("sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin") indicates that both human and animal suffering, along with death, began only after "the fall". In this view, Eden was a perfect, painless environment. But of course, you will offer pushback here -- because you cannot allow for this reality to be true in your argument.

The same book also asserts that suffering will again no longer exist if one is chosen and goes to Heaven. Hence, you can apparently be conscious without suffering regardless.

No, I offer pushback because of what I think the texts mean. You can’t refute my arguments there by claiming I’ve got some ulterior motive; deal with the arguments and support your accepted interpretation of these texts, whether that is about the existence of suffering prior to the “Fall” or the difference between the initial environment and the eventual overcoming of certain obstacles that are found in Heaven.

Still awaiting answers to the (2) unanswered questions.

I answered them in the second paragraph of my sketch. Suffering is a feature of conscious systems (although that suffering can eventually be overcome) to where suffering itself is not a moral issue. The creation of carnivores, therefore, is not immoral.

[POI]

\Why do you think you understand my view on how morality is grounded?

I simply rolled out the basic definitions and also laid out clear distinction(s) between the term(s) a) subjectivity and b) objectivity.

a) "the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."
b) "the antithesis of (a), and applying measurable data, which remains true regardless of any sentient/conscious agencies position/thoughts/assertions/etc.

As also stated prior, (morality) might as well be interchangeable with the term (wellbeing). And identified actions can be objectively measured against (wellbeing). Which ultimately leads us to the (2) unanswered questions again attached at the bottom.

Since the Bible god is (deemed/considered) a conscious agency, he is applying subjective thought -- by sheer definition. Case/point, God's commands, feelings, and thoughts are plastered throughout the Bible; namely in the 613 commandments and beyond.

Morality isn’t grounded in God’s opinions on the matter. If God created humans and animals with their specific natures and put in humans a moral purpose to seek the good of others, if He then changed His mind and decided murder was going to be okay, that wouldn’t change what was moral.

Thanks for mentioning one of the two <problematic> horns of the 'Euthyphro dilemma.'

The act of creation is what grounds morality.

What you are essentially saying is "because God created the world and all people, He holds ownership over them, which necessitates obedience to His will." You are, in a partial sense, merely rebranding the term "Divine Command Theory". The first horn of the presented problematic "Euthyphro dilemma" states that good actions are good because they are willed/created by God, (which is also often called Divine Command Theory).

You are also basically saying that "the foundation for objective "right" and "wrong" is rooted in the fact that a Creator (God) brought the universe into existence and therefore has the authority to define its rules." This perspective argues that without a creator, morality becomes subjective or relative to culture, whereas a creator-based morality provides an absolute, unchanging standard. But EVEN if this god existed and laid out "the rules", why are these rules actually "right" and/or "good"? Is it because:

a) might makes right?
b) other?

deal with the arguments and support your accepted interpretation of these texts,

I have, in only mentioning Romans 5:12 alone, and you have offered no rebuttal.

whether that is about the existence of suffering prior to the “Fall” or the difference between the initial environment and the eventual overcoming of certain obstacles that are found in Heaven.

Even if we were to ignore and/or completely throw out the claim regarding "absence of suffering prior to the fall", - (which you reject for whatever reason), you would still have to deal with the fact that consciousness certainly can exist without suffering, (i.e.) in the concept of conscious beings in Heaven.

I answered them in the second paragraph of my sketch. Suffering is a feature of conscious systems (although that suffering can eventually be overcome) to where suffering itself is not a moral issue. The creation of carnivores, therefore, is not immoral.

You most certainly have not answered them. Here there are, yet again:

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?

[alexxcJRO]

I felt like my response had clear implications for your analogy. I think the foundation you are working from in asking these questions is limiting you from hearing God’s replies. I think God cares more deeply about your close relative and the suffering they are having to endure than anyone else. I think that is part of having an environment with conscious beings and that making such an environment so is better than non-existence. Your close relative still has lots of value and can experience peace in the midst of that suffering as the Christian God is the One who suffered for us and suffers with us, even if that suffering isn’t fully taken away.

Sir I was a Christian. There is no God's reply. Only silence.
The ones saying otherwise are delusional.

My relative does not experience any peace. As times goes by his "soul" is crushed more and his will to live is getting lower and lower. It seems to point to the fact that great suffering does not make existence great or have any benefit.

In the decades of suffering there was not upside to it. At this point is very close to being an atheist probably because in his decades of praying for help there was zero help and zero prayers answered. Silence and indifference can only point to non-existence.

The Bible does not clearly portray conscious eternal torment. Hebrews 6:2 talks about God’s act of judgment being eternal, but no one thinks this is saying His act of judgment will go on forever. Hebrews 9:12 talks about Jesus’ act of redeeming us being eternal, but no one thinks Jesus’ redeeming act goes on forever, otherwise we would never be fully redeemed. Jude 1:7 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah suffering eternal fire, but the fires were not still burning in Jude’s day. The effects are eternal, not the fire itself. That’s what we see in Matthew 13:41 and 25:41, which you quote. The weeds that are collected and burned would be destroyed in that analogy, not exist within the fire forever. Rev 14:11 draws on an ancient image of smoke for destruction rather than ongoing torment (such as in Gen 19:28 and Isaiah 34:9-10).

But even if my understanding of those is wrong, those passages do not speak of God doing the tormenting. God is willing for all to come to life, but He won’t force it. Those that will not come would, if they do not cease to exist, would either be continuing to harm each other or become so isolated and inward focused that the torment is of their own making.

1.The Bible clearly says "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels", "They will be tormented with burning sulfur", "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown."

It was prepared by who? Was thrown by who? Tormented by who? Clearly by God. Therefore God is responsible.
God supposedly created the omni-verse with entropy, decay and disease. Ergo God is responsible sir.

2.The Bible clearly says "They will be tormented with burning sulfur ... And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. ", "They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." which points to eternal torment.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

Since the Bible god is (deemed/considered) a conscious agency, he is applying subjective thought -- by sheer definition. Case/point, God's commands, feelings, and thoughts are plastered throughout the Bible; namely in the 613 commandments and beyond.

While God has subjective thoughts about moral actions, that isn’t what is grounding the goodness or badness of the action. The act of creation is. The difference between atheism and theism in the act of creation is that a personal agent can build in objective purpose that the moral creature should be acting for the wellbeing of other beings.

Morality isn’t grounded in God’s opinions on the matter. If God created humans and animals with their specific natures and put in humans a moral purpose to seek the good of others, if He then changed His mind and decided murder was going to be okay, that wouldn’t change what was moral.

Thanks for mentioning one of the two <problematic> horns of the 'Euthyphro dilemma.'

If morality is based on God’s thoughts, morality becomes arbitrary because if God commanded that murder was good, it would be good. My view doesn’t lead to this. Morality is based on the nature of beings plus the objective purpose to act towards the good of others that God creates in moral agents. Sure, that act of creation comes from God’s subjective actions which came because of His subjective thoughts, but that doesn’t make morality subjective any more than God’s subjective thoughts leading to the subjective action to create the Earth with a certain shape doesn’t mean the shape of the Earth is a subjective fact.

Okay, then does my view succumb to the other horn? Is God just commanding what is inherently right and, therefore, morality exists independent of God? My view doesn’t result in this either. God is the source through the act of creation and morality logically follows from that act of creation.

What you are essentially saying is "because God created the world and all people, He holds ownership over them, which necessitates obedience to His will."

I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that because God created the world and moral agents in a certain way, what is good or evil for them logically follows. God gives moral agents freedom to obey what is logically good for them or not.

You are also basically saying that "the foundation for objective "right" and "wrong" is rooted in the fact that a Creator (God) brought the universe into existence and therefore has the authority to define its rules."

This is trivially true. The one who creates something, by definition, determines its nature and rules about what is good for it naturally follows from that act of creation. This isn’t follow God’s rules because He says so, but because that is logically how you work.

I have, in only mentioning Romans 5:12 alone, and you have offered no rebuttal.

Your case was an appeal to authority, which is a textbook fallacy.

Even if we were to ignore and/or completely throw out the claim regarding "absence of suffering prior to the fall", - (which you reject for whatever reason), you would still have to deal with the fact that consciousness certainly can exist without suffering, (i.e.) in the concept of conscious beings in Heaven.

My point there was that just because suffering is overcome, this doesn’t mean suffering didn’t have to be a part from the beginning. You have the burden of showing it shouldn’t have been a part at the beginning.

I answered them in the second paragraph of my sketch. Suffering is a feature of conscious systems (although that suffering can eventually be overcome) to where suffering itself is not a moral issue. The creation of carnivores, therefore, is not immoral.

You most certainly have not answered them. Here there are, yet again:

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?

If suffering is an initial necessary feature of conscious systems, suffering as suffering is amoral. The suffering that comes through a carnivorous system, then, is not evil. This takes out the force of your questions. Maybe it isn’t necessary, but it isn’t evil so it doesn’t matter if it is necessary or not.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #148]

Sir I was a Christian. There is no God's reply. Only silence.
The ones saying otherwise are delusional.

Why does your subjective experience or your relative’s subjective experience trump theirs? I don’t think either subjective experience trumps the other. What this means is that we have to look at the logical foundations. This means you have to support why suffering is evil or explain what the problem with suffering is without the concept of evil.


On Hell

It was prepared by who? Was thrown by who? Tormented by who? Clearly by God. Therefore God is responsible.
God supposedly created the omni-verse with entropy, decay and disease. Ergo God is responsible sir.

I never said God isn’t responsible for the existence of hell. The alternatives, to allow beings to create evil for others forever, for no free beings to have ever existed or for no beings at all to have ever existed, are worse options. Our disagreement here is about what exactly God is responsible for.

1.The Bible clearly says "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels",

Why do you think ‘eternal’ here means torture going on forever?

"They will be tormented with burning sulfur",

Why do you think this is either (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?

"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown."

Why do you think this is either (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?

And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. "

Why is the smoke rising forever (a) literal or (b) a metaphor for ongoing torture forever?

"They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." which points to eternal torment.

Again, this is an assertion, not support. Since this is a new verse (Rev 20:10), I’ll share my thoughts as well, like I did with your other verses already.

All throughout scripture dreams and visions depict realities through symbolic imagery. In Rev 1, for instance, John sees seven gold lampstands and seven stars. Sometimes those get interpreted in the text. For instance, a few verses later, Jesus says the lampstands are the seven churches and the stars are their angels. The interpretation is the thing in reality, the vision symbolizes it, but not in a literal way. The churches aren’t gold just because the lampstand is, for instance.

In Rev 20:10, John sees a vision of a lake of fire and torment day and night forever and ever. In verse 14 we are told that the lake of fire is the second death. Just as the lampstands don’t describe what the churches are in details, the eternal torment in the lake of fire doesn’t describe what the second death is in details. That this is a second death, coupled with verse 15 where the names of the unrighteous are not written in the book of life points to finality, as we associate with death.

Verse 14 also says that death is thrown into the lake of fire. Is death being tormented forever? In a few verses (Rev 21:4) we see that death will be no more. Also, the beast thrown in the lake of fire and supposedly tortured forever and ever, an angel tells John in Rev 17:8, that it will be destroyed. Obviously, we should show an author enough charity to not resort to thinking they are complete idiots contradicting themselves within a few verses, when we see what genres they are using and have knowledge of how they work.