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]

If your answer to “what is moral?” is to look at what promotes well-being, to use them as interchangeable terms would clearly lead to begging the question. That’s why you can’t just interchange them.

Here is what I mean when I state they are interchangeable. If the deliberate action(s) does/do not promote or comport with a sentient agent's well-being, it is deemed 'bad' or "immoral". <Morality> involves promoting the <well-being> of such said sentient agency. If you instead witness action(s) towards non-sentient agencies, it is an <amoral> action, as non-living objects/items/other have no ability to (experience, learn, or other) from the action(s). In a nutshell, (what is moral?) involves the well-being of sentient agent(s). Without one, in morality, you cannot have the other(s), in well-being and sentient agency.

This is why we touched prior upon what actually IS well-being, without ever vetting it out completely? I agree that 'comfort' alone does not always count. It's a term which has to be explored. But some acts to promote 'wellbeing' are more obvious than others. Hence, again, (without getting a clear answer from you), is the continued allowance of a flesh-eating parasite to feast upon my pet a ('moral' or 'immoral' or 'amoral') action, and why?

I agree that sometimes that is the only or, at least, key consideration, but my point is that sometimes it is not moral to simply consider the promotion of health. Morality, in many situations, is more complex than that.

Without observing the action(s) to promote or comport with the "well-being" of sentient agency, the topic of "morality" does not really even enter the equation.

Oh, that’s your overall question? The OP-er (and you since you have taken on that position) has the burden to show why this is obvious because it is integral to your argument.

Just as it is obviously "immoral" to witness an attempted act of "murder", "rape", or "theft" against a sentient agency, and for me to actively not do anything to stop it, it also is just as obviously "immoral" to witness a flesh-eating parasite to actively feast upon my pet, and for me to also not do anything about it. Why? I provided the definition above.

If you have the power within the chaos, you can benefit greatly from that. Many think they will improve by acting selfishly within even a stable society. What many think will improve their well-being, they think comes at the cost of the well-being of others. All science gives us is a description of competing desires and ideas of well-being and how best to get those desires; it doesn’t tell us which desires and which ways to get those desires are the best.

As a funny aside:



******************************

If we have a working definition, we can evaluate, whether it be saving a fellow war mate in battle, pulling someone from a burning building, or etc. Your conscious will tell you if you did everything you could. In some cases, to try and save the wounded soldier would be pure suicide, just the same as a fireman knows if there is a decent chance to save someone from a building. This is why we have the court of law, to sometimes judge the more-so obvious situations, where the one not directly affected by the "tragedy" can possibly be judged for negligence. Again, it goes back to the given definition of 'morality' --- which always involved both 'well-being' and 'sentient agency'.

Why do you think “good” can only refer to moral goodness?

We can skip this part altogether and you would still be starting from the wrong origin. (i.e.) Genesis 1:30:

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so."

It's quite clear the author believes that, at this point, all the living ate plants. You either need to hand-wave this passage, or, you need to reject aspects of evolution. Seems as though you have opted for the former, in bringing up the possibility of 'myth.' So, why is this passage of "myth'? Further, why do we instead know that the same animals/other that do not eat plants now, did not eat them then either; and Genesis 1:30 is not really literal here?

What does “face-value” mean?

See the underlined above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

Here is what I mean when I state they are interchangeable. If the deliberate action(s) does/do not promote or comport with a sentient agent's well-being, it is deemed 'bad' or "immoral". <Morality> involves promoting the <well-being> of such said sentient agency. If you instead witness action(s) towards non-sentient agencies, it is an <amoral> action, as non-living objects/items/other have no ability to (experience, learn, or other) from the action(s). In a nutshell, (what is moral?) involves the well-being of sentient agent(s). Without one, in morality, you cannot have the other(s), in well-being and sentient agency.

First, in many moral situations the same act will promote the claimed “well-being” of one agent(s) and work against the claimed “well-being” of another agent(s). Second, why one idea of well-being versus another? Third, why ought we care about the well-being of others at all, if we believe we can get our well-being by exploiting the well-being of others? The immorality of the creation of animal predation is not obvious, at least not yet.

This is why we touched prior upon what actually IS well-being, without ever vetting it out completely? I agree that 'comfort' alone does not always count. It's a term which has to be explored. But some acts to promote 'wellbeing' are more obvious than others. Hence, again, (without getting a clear answer from you), is the continued allowance of a flesh-eating parasite to feast upon my pet a ('moral' or 'immoral' or 'amoral') action, and why?

If you are able to help your pet without, say, putting your child in danger of starvation by doing so, then I think you should. That’s a different question then if you are faced with the choice of (a) create a being that can undergo suffering or (b) not create that being at all.

We can skip this part altogether and you would still be starting from the wrong origin. (i.e.) Genesis 1:30:

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so."

It's quite clear the author believes that, at this point, all the living ate plants. You either need to hand-wave this passage, or, you need to reject aspects of evolution. Seems as though you have opted for the former, in bringing up the possibility of 'myth.' So, why is this passage of "myth'? Further, why do we instead know that the same animals/other that do not eat plants now, did not eat them then either; and Genesis 1:30 is not really literal here?

You are still just asserting your interpretation without any rational support. Authors don’t only write literal, modern history and scientific books, especially in the time Genesis was written; those genres simply didn’t exist back then. Saying “it’s quite clear” is empty rhetoric that avoids the burden of support. So does calling it a “hand-wave”. You have the burden to prove your interpretation because you brought this passage up to try to defeat a claim I made; I don’t have the burden to prove your premises, principles, etc. wrong.

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so."

…

What does “face-value” mean?

See the underlined above.

You underlined parts of a verse that you think should be interpreted as literal, modern scientific claims; that doesn’t tell us what “face value” means, but makes it look like it’s another empty rhetoric to avoid rationally supporting your interpretation as the "obvious" reading.

[POI]

First, in many moral situations the same act will promote the claimed “well-being” of one agent(s) and work against the claimed “well-being” of another agent(s).

We've already touched on this. (Evolution promotes overall well-being > personal well-being). The 14-second video also helps to illustrate. Obvious observations are sometimes even funny, which makes them comedy sketches. This is also an obvious one, like 'murder is bad', 'rape is bad', etc... But sure, we can always argue nuance, even with the topic of murder.

Second, why one idea of well-being versus another?

Evolution. Just like if you were to ask why most believe in an invisible god, verses not?

Third, why ought we care about the well-being of others at all, if we believe we can get our well-being by exploiting the well-being of others?

Again, evolution. Why is anything the way it is? The burden lies upon you to demonstrate that an invisible sky fairy is pulling all the strings. Alternatively, the answer is the same as above, evolution. This is why I stated a few posts prior, that maybe some theists will argue that god uses evolution as the "driving force"?

The immorality of the creation of animal predation is not obvious, at least not yet.

Sure it is. If I had means to create sentient agents and designed a setting where many will be slowly ripped apart, but did not or would not account for why this must take place, then my applied action(s) might not be promoting their well-being. But alas, apparently, this claimed invisible god is also claimed to be an interactive god. You or I can just ask him in prayer/other. I guess it remains a secret not meant for humans to ever know!

The theist is left to grapple with the question, by shrugging his/her shoulders and saying, (paraphrased) - "the Bible does not disclose all of life's mysteries nor will he answer my question in prayer", while assuming that this invisible god actually has a purpose here, but is just not disclosing it. While alternatively, in applying Occam's Razor, maybe it is instead just nature being nature, and no god really exists at all; not even an 'evil' one?

If you are able to help your pet without, say, putting your child in danger of starvation by doing so, then I think you should. That’s a different question then if you are faced with the choice of (a) create a being that can undergo suffering or (b) not create that being at all.

Again, with the false dichotomy. If I am a 'omni' creator, I can create any logical environment I so wish. Why MUST some of the animal population be torn apart? Or better yet, why do animals have to even eat anything at all (unanswered)? Couldn't god's plan for the animal kingdom be accomplished without the (3) topics below, in light of the fact that Genesis 1:30 states that all breathing life once ate plants? If not, why not?:

1. suffering
2. predation
3. eating

You are still just asserting your interpretation without any rational support.

No sir. It is a plain reading. The onus is upon you to demonstrate why this particular passage should not be taken directly as read?

Authors don’t only write literal, modern history and scientific books, especially in the time Genesis was written; those genres simply didn’t exist back then. Saying “it’s quite clear” is empty rhetoric that avoids the burden of support. So does calling it a “hand-wave”. You have the burden to prove your interpretation because you brought this passage up to try to defeat a claim I made; I don’t have the burden to prove your premises, principles, etc. wrong.

Even when reading a known work of fiction, I'm fully aware that some passages are literal, metaphorical, and other genres, depending upon where I read and apply context accordingly. Further, I'm also aware as to passages in the Bible where latitude might be granted, when compared to hyper-literacy. Again, the burden is still placed upon you to demonstrate why this particular passage should not be taken directly as read, in that the Bible is really not telling the reader that all these expressed 'agents' did not really once eat plants?

You underlined parts of a verse that you think should be interpreted as literal, modern scientific claims; that doesn’t tell us what “face value” means, but makes it look like it’s another empty rhetoric to avoid rationally supporting your interpretation as the "obvious" reading.

As expressed above, the ball is in your proverbial court now.

[historia]

It is assumed in much anti-theistic polemic that the Bible has traditionally always been interpreted literally. A lot of criticism of believers is based on how irrational, impossible and anti-scientific such a reading of the Bible has to be and how the current literalism of many fundamentalist Christians simply reflects how the Bible has always been read, with non-literal interpretations simply a modern rear-guard attempt to reconcile the Bible with current understandings of the world. But this is not true. In fact, fundamentalist Biblical literalism is a very recent, mostly Protestant and largely American affair. Historically, things were much more complex.

Sir the Church fathers view the Noah's flood as true events, as in the literal sense. Even Augustine was against metaphorical interpretation of Adam and Eve story. Adam being a historical person. He was a Young Earth Creationist.

You're demonstrating O'Neill's point here.

Calling Augustine a "Young Earth Creationist" (in capital letters no less) is like calling Jesus a "Socialist."

Socialism is, of course, a modern political and economic system. That label should not be anachronistically projected back onto someone living in the Roman Empire in the 1st Century, where it wouldn't make much sense.

Likewise, YEC is a modern theological viewpoint that, in turn, depends upon a Protestant (and specifically Fundamentalist) way of interpreting Scripture. That label, too, should not be anachronistically projected back onto ancient or Medieval Christians, where it wouldn't make much sense.

Consider, for example, these comments from Origin on Genesis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

First Principles 4.16

And Augustine, also talking about Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.

It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

. . .

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about [the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20, 2:9.

No Young Earth Creationist would affirm this way of interpreting the Bible!

For Origin and Augustine, as with the other Church Fathers, the Bible is first and foremost a 'spiritual' book that conveys 'spiritual' truths about God and our salvation. In so far as the text touches on aspects of the natural world or events in history, these are secondary -- in Augustine's words, they are in "no way necessary" for grasping the true meaning of Scripture.

Those things could be interpreted literally, of course. But they could be treated as figurative -- especially if taking them literally conflicted with the author's own understanding of the world or history. In some cases, Augustine was happy to accept both readings!

Again, your original suggestion above was that Christians considered all of these stories in Genesis "as not problematic and seen as literal" before "certain scientific knowledge" made that untenable, at which point they switched to a "metaphorical interpretation."

That, I contend, simply misunderstands ancient and Medieval Christian authors. They clearly understood that reading Genesis literally posed potential problems -- problems that they themselves saw, but also problems that future readers might discover. That's why they privileged the 'spiritual' (allegorical, moral, anagogical) meaning of the text over the 'literal' sense.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #193]

First, in many moral situations the same act will promote the claimed “well-being” of one agent(s) and work against the claimed “well-being” of another agent(s).

We've already touched on this. (Evolution promotes overall well-being > personal well-being).

Your touching on this resulted in you saying that evolution promotes overall well-being because that is what promotes personal well-being, which is really an argument that personal well-being > overall well-being.

Second, why one idea of well-being versus another?

Evolution. Just like if you were to ask why most believe in an invisible god, verses not?

We are talking about objective moral truth here. With the example you just gave, you don’t believe that explanation actually gives us truth, so why would it in moral truth? Again, this is an explanation that certain moral beliefs exist, but not why we should actually act in line with those beliefs.

Third, why ought we care about the well-being of others at all, if we believe we can get our well-being by exploiting the well-being of others?

Again, evolution. Why is anything the way it is? The burden lies upon you to demonstrate that an invisible sky fairy is pulling all the strings.

No, stop shifting the burden of your positive claims.

The immorality of the creation of animal predation is not obvious, at least not yet.

Sure it is. If I had means to create sentient agents and designed a setting where many will be slowly ripped apart, but did not or would not account for why this must take place, then my applied action(s) might not be promoting their well-being.

When you actually try to support this claim instead of just asserting it, I’ll be ready to listen.

But alas, apparently, this claimed invisible god is also claimed to be an interactive god. You or I can just ask him in prayer/other. I guess it remains a secret not meant for humans to ever know!

The theist is left to grapple with the question, by shrugging his/her shoulders and saying, (paraphrased) - "the Bible does not disclose all of life's mysteries nor will he answer my question in prayer", while assuming that this invisible god actually has a purpose here, but is just not disclosing it. While alternatively, in applying Occam's Razor, maybe it is instead just nature being nature, and no god really exists at all; not even an 'evil' one?

I’ve shared why I think it makes sense, not just appealed to mystery or just assert things.

Again, with the false dichotomy. If I am a 'omni' creator, I can create any logical environment I so wish. Why MUST some of the animal population be torn apart? Or better yet, why do animals have to even eat anything at all (unanswered)? Couldn't god's plan for the animal kingdom be accomplished without the (3) topics below, in light of the fact that Genesis 1:30 states that all breathing life once ate plants? If not, why not?:

1. suffering
2. predation
3. eating

I’ve already answered this many times.

No sir. It is a plain reading. The onus is upon you to demonstrate why this particular passage should not be taken directly as read?

When you are willing to support your claim instead of just assuming it is true until proven wrong, I’ll be here to listen.

Since you aren’t saying anything new and I’ve said all I want in response to your points, are you ready to move to the “more to come” list?

[POI]

When you are willing to support your claim instead of just assuming it is true until proven wrong, I’ll be here to listen.

I did, and you hand-waved all of it.

Again, the text states "everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ Why is this passage not meant to be taken as written? So far, all you've offered here is, (paraphrased) - "Oh, that passage is part of myth."

Until you can justify why this passage is actually part of myth, your entire argument hinges upon hopes and dreams. Alternatively, I've issued a verse which clearly tells its readers that all breathers <once ate> plants, (which we both know is objectively false).

Your touching on this resulted in you saying that evolution promotes overall well-being because that is what promotes personal well-being, which is really an argument that personal well-being > overall well-being.

Then you are missing my argument. I've already explained. I'll try again. Because most of us are a social/tribal animal, we understand that overall well-being is a necessity. Most of us do not live alone in the mountains somewhere, forging for our own resources -- (absent to exposure of "morality", as we are no longer affiliated with the observance of action(s) which affect other sentient agents' well-being in either a 'positive' or 'negative' way). We may deem these folks as effectively 'anti-social', or 'off-the-grid', or other. They are exceptions to the rule. And as I've also pointed out, all rules can have exception, even if we instead speak about what you and I would agree of obvious moral truths, like murder or theft. Nuance and exception(s) can take place even with those topics.

We are talking about objective moral truth here. With the example you just gave, you don’t believe that explanation actually gives us truth,

Yes, I do. Evolution objectively has weeded out the humans which favor possible type 2 errors over type 1 errors. Expressions, slogans, and sayings exist for a reason. I'm sure you've heard the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes." For me, now, if I were in a foxhole, knowing my demise was soon to come; due to "cope" and "desperation", I may very well pray, just in case. It's also why many still fear the dark, even though it is not logical or rational to do so. After countless "monsterless" encounters, we grow up knowing there exists nothing lurking out there, in the dark, to get us. We logically know nothing is hiding, but we still may possess illogical or irrational fear of the unknown or unseen. Type 1 errors are often benign, without true consequence, which is why we have so many god believers. Which is why the theist can confidently tell others, "you'll find out the truth of god after you die." It cannot be falsified/invalidated or receive physical consequence, if it isn't true.

so why would it in moral truth? Again, this is an explanation that certain moral beliefs exist, but not why we should actually act in line with those beliefs.

As explained above, because I'm a product of evolution, I'm constantly fighting my 'primal intuitions' against my logic. I did not become a 'skeptic' overnight. But this is a conversation for another day, and I digress.

When you actually try to support this claim instead of just asserting it, I’ll be ready to listen.

I see this as another hand-wave, which will effectively get us nowhere.

I’ve shared why I think it makes sense, not just appealed to mystery or just assert things.

You did appeal to mystery when you stated (paraphrased) that "the Bible is not going to explain everything under the sun." Since god does not tell us WHY animals must be involved in predation, along with the fact that even though he is said to be an interactive god, and still, we cannot ask him for the answer, you have no choice but to appeal to mystery.

I’ve already answered this many times.

And I've already addressed this response many times, in that it is not binary, or a dichotomy between a) not existing <vs> b) existing with predation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #196]

When you are willing to support your claim instead of just assuming it is true until proven wrong, I’ll be here to listen.

I did, and you hand-waved all of it.

Again, the text states "everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ Why is this passage not meant to be taken as written? So far, all you've offered here is, (paraphrased) - "Oh, that passage is part of myth."

Until you can justify why this passage is actually part of myth, your entire argument hinges upon hopes and dreams. Alternatively, I've issued a verse which clearly tells its readers that all breathers <once ate> plants, (which we both know is objectively false).

“Taken as written” is just another way to say that the text means what you interpret it to mean without you actually supporting that interpretation, which is the actual hand waving being done here. Literal interpretations are not the default, so if you make a claim/critique based off of a literal interpretation, you have the burden to prove that interpretation as the most rational. I did not use Genesis to support my claim.

Then you are missing my argument. I've already explained. I'll try again. Because most of us are a social/tribal animal, we understand that overall well-being is a necessity. Most of us do not live alone in the mountains somewhere, forging for our own resources -- (absent to exposure of "morality", as we are no longer affiliated with the observance of action(s) which affect other sentient agents' well-being in either a 'positive' or 'negative' way). We may deem these folks as effectively 'anti-social', or 'off-the-grid', or other. They are exceptions to the rule. And as I've also pointed out, all rules can have exception, even if we instead speak about what you and I would agree of obvious moral truths, like murder or theft. Nuance and exception(s) can take place even with those topics.

Sure, if one wants to be social/tribal, one should seek the overall well-being of that group. You still aren’t supporting why one should care about that (whether they actually do or not care about it).

We are talking about objective moral truth here. With the example you just gave, you don’t believe that explanation actually gives us truth,

Yes, I do. Evolution objectively has weeded out the humans which favor possible type 2 errors over type 1 errors. Expressions, slogans, and sayings exist for a reason. I'm sure you've heard the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes." For me, now, if I were in a foxhole, knowing my demise was soon to come; due to "cope" and "desperation", I may very well pray, just in case. It's also why many still fear the dark, even though it is not logical or rational to do so. After countless "monsterless" encounters, we grow up knowing there exists nothing lurking out there, in the dark, to get us. We logically know nothing is hiding, but we still may possess illogical or irrational fear of the unknown or unseen. Type 1 errors are often benign, without true consequence, which is why we have so many god believers. Which is why the theist can confidently tell others, "you'll find out the truth of god after you die." It cannot be falsified/invalidated or receive physical consequence, if it isn't true.

You seemed to have missed the point. Here was the form of this part of our conversation. Is A or B true? A. Okay, why? Your answer is that most people believe A is true. Okay, but that doesn’t answer if A or B is actually true, especially in light of the example you gave where you think B is true in spite of most people believing A is true.

I’ve shared why I think it makes sense, not just appealed to mystery or just assert things.

You did appeal to mystery when you stated (paraphrased) that "the Bible is not going to explain everything under the sun." Since god does not tell us WHY animals must be involved in predation, along with the fact that even though he is said to be an interactive god, and still, we cannot ask him for the answer, you have no choice but to appeal to mystery.

I appealed to science, genre, etc., not mystery for reasons to believe that the creation of animal predation is an amoral issue rather than an evil act. If you bring up something new to respond to or ask for a clarification I haven’t already given, I’ll respond to that. If not, I'm ready to move on to the “still to come” list if you still want to address those.

[POI]

In summation, I have added a follow-up below, for anyone just now joining in... Further, in case I have not already said so... I have enjoyed our exchange so far.

I have demonstrated that, based upon the Christian worldview, animal predation is immoral. Why? Morality goes directly hand-and-hand with observing and assessing any action(s) taken which either (promote or are instead counter-intuitive) to the well-being of sentient agencies. If you try to (express or justify) the term 'morality' without these sighted components, it's no longer expressing or discussing the topic of "morality". This is why it is paramount for the theist to dissect what the term well-being actually means. And I have already conceded that the term well-being has nuance. According to the Christian worldview, not only does an invisible cosmic agency exist, (which is also apparently asserted to be interactive), but this invisible agency also apparently is in favor of promoting the well-being of his living and breathing creation. And yet, a simple and very straight forward example immediately causes the Christan worldview to crumble.

It would be 'immoral' not to have a flesh-eating parasite removed from my suffering pet, if I had the means and opportunity to do so. This is as obvious as observing an attempted murder or theft and also having the means to stop it but opting not to do so. I doubt you would kick up much of a fuss or ask follow-up (should) and (why) questions if we were to instead discuss how we just know the topics of (murder and theft) are 'immoral', even though we both very well know that nuance can very easily come into play with both (murder and theft) as well.

Literal interpretations are not the default,

Neither is 'myth', and yet you care not to simply explain why Genesis 1:30 is supposed to be myth. "The fall" implies there is something to actually "fall" from. Genesis 1:30 includes how all animals once ate plants, and god states this action was 'good'. Predation is not simply 'amoral'. If it were, any observed act of parasitic activity being inflicted upon my pet, and me trying to stop it, would be deemed an 'amoral' action rather than "the right thing to do." Instead, since the pet owner is looking out for the 'well-being' of his/her pet, being this pet also has sentient agency, this action to stop the parasitic activity classifies as a 'moral/immoral' action, as opposed to an 'amoral' one.

Sure, if one wants to be social/tribal, one should seek the overall well-being of that group. You still aren’t supporting why one should care about that (whether they actually do or not care about it).

I have demonstrated why animal predation IS immoral, by the definition again given at the top. And now you are asking (why) anyone (should) care. Seems you have conceded that animal predation is immoral, in the example I have given, and now you are asking a follow up question, which can all-together be a separate topic. Quite frankly, the answer is little different, in (why should we care), verses if we were instead discussing why not allow for rape, theft, trespassing, other. Further, I also gave you the 'why should we care', when I quoted the "CDC" a few responses back.

Is A or B true? A. Okay, why? Your answer is that most people believe A is true. Okay, but that doesn’t answer if A or B is actually true, especially in light of the example you gave where you think B is true in spite of most people believing A is true.

No. We all know "A" is true. Take the 14-second Castanza video as an easy example... Mr. Castanza knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyways. This is where the theist might argue that 'evil' makes us do 'bad' things, even when we intrinsically know what is actually right. The theist will argue that we know this because "god wrote his moral compass on our hearts, so we are without excuse to know what is truly right". I instead argue a differing view. And we (should) follow this mantra because it aligns with overall well-being and continues to fulfill our evolutionary goals.

I appealed to science, genre, etc., not mystery for reasons to believe that the creation of animal predation is an amoral issue rather than an evil act. If you bring up something new to respond to or ask for a clarification I haven’t already given, I’ll respond to that. If not, I'm ready to move on to the “still to come” list if you still want to address those.

No amount of handwaving will change what I stated in my last response. (i.e.) You did appeal to mystery when you stated (paraphrased) that "the Bible is not going to explain everything under the sun." Since god does not tell us WHY animals must be involved in predation, along with the fact that even though he is said to be an interactive god, and still, we cannot ask him for the answer, you have no choice but to appeal to mystery.

[William]

AI: Summary of Final Exchanges Between Tanager and POI
The debate concludes with both participants restating their core positions and responding to points they feel the other has not adequately addressed.

Tanager's Final Position (Post #197)

Reiterates that literal interpretation of scripture is not the default position, and that the burden of proof rests on POI to demonstrate why a literal reading of Genesis 1:29-30 is the most rational interpretation.

Maintains that POI has not supported why anyone "should" care about collective well-being, only that humans are evolutionarily wired to do so.

States that he has supported his position through appeals to science and genre analysis, not mystery, and that the question of animal suffering being amoral rather than evil has been addressed.

Expresses readiness to move on to POI's outstanding list of topics if POI wishes to continue.

POI's Final Position (Post #198)

Reasserts that morality is defined by actions that promote or undermine the well-being of sentient agents, and that animal predation fails this standard.

Presents the analogy of removing a parasite from a suffering pet as an objectively "moral" action, arguing that if predation were truly "amoral," such interventions would be meaningless.

Argues that Tanager has conceded the point by shifting from debating whether animal predation is immoral to questioning why anyone "should" care.

Maintains that Tanager has appealed to mystery by stating the Bible does not explain everything, particularly why animals must suffer through predation.

States that the example of George Costanza (Seinfeld) demonstrates that humans intuitively know right from wrong, which theists attribute to God's moral compass and POI attributes to evolutionary goals.

Concludes that he has demonstrated, based on the Christian worldview, that animal predation is immoral.

Me: At this point, given the overall summaries which of the two have presented the better argument?

AI: Criteria for Assessment
To determine which argument is "better," we must consider:

Internal Consistency: Does the argument hold together logically without contradicting itself?

Adherence to Burden of Proof: Does the arguer support their claims, or do they shift the burden to their opponent?

Responsiveness: Does the arguer directly address their opponent's points, or do they evade and change the subject?

Foundation of Premises: Are the core assumptions of the argument well-supported or merely asserted?

Assessment of POI's Argument
Strengths: POI's argument is intuitively appealing. His central claim—that a loving, omnipotent God could have created a world without predatory suffering—resonates with common moral intuition. His use of concrete analogies (e.g., the parasite and the pet) is effective at grounding the abstract debate in a visceral, easy-to-understand scenario. He consistently returns to specific biblical texts (Genesis 1:29-30) to ground his critique within the Christian framework.

Weaknesses: POI's argument ultimately rests on an unproven premise: that the existence of suffering is, in itself, an evil act. He asserts this repeatedly but never provides a robust philosophical or theological justification for why this must be so, independent of intuition. His challenge to Tanager often takes the form of "explain why this isn't evil," which, while a valid question, shifts the burden of proof away from his own positive claim that it is evil.

Assessment of Tanager's Argument
Strengths: Tanager's argument is structurally sounder from a logical perspective. He correctly identifies and consistently highlights POI's unproven premise. His insistence that POI must first establish why suffering is inherently evil before discussing its necessity is a valid and strong procedural objection. He broadens the debate to foundational questions (the nature of morality, biblical hermeneutics) that POI's critique necessarily rests upon but does not address. His argument does not rely on a single, vulnerable premise.

Weaknesses: Tanager's position can feel evasive and overly academic. His response to POI's visceral analogies and intuitive challenges often boils down to "you haven't proven your premise," which, while logically correct, can come across as dodging the emotional and moral weight of the question. His defense of biblical interpretation, while reasoned, relies on a hermeneutical approach that many (including POI) would reject as special pleading.

Conclusion: Who Presented the Better Argument?
From a purely logical and philosophical standpoint, Tanager presented the better argument.

While POI's case is morally compelling and intuitively powerful, it is built on a foundation he never successfully secures. Tanager consistently and correctly identifies this foundational weakness. He forces the debate to the meta-level where it must be resolved, and POI is unable to provide the justification Tanager demands. POI's argument "wins" on emotional and intuitive appeal; Tanager's argument "wins" on logical structure and procedural rigor. Because the debate is about a philosophical and theological proposition, the argument with the stronger logical foundation is, by the standards of such debates, the better one. Tanager effectively defended the position that the claim "animal suffering is evil" requires proof, and POI failed to provide it.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #198]

Thanks for your summary perspective. I've already shared my thoughts and there appears to be nothing new to address, so let's move on.

(1) “What is god’s version of justice?”

Could you clarify what you were/are asking here? Are you wanting a definition like “restoring right relationships and making wrong things right”? Or are you asking something different or more specific?