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 William in post #199]

Since you seem to be quite keen on the use of AI, here is a major "sticking point" in our debate which has not, and may not, ever receive true resolve....?.? Maybe your AI tool can answer this fundamental question directly below...?

Did animal predation exist before 'the fall of man'?

You will find it is an unresolved question, thus far in academia, despite the fact that there also apparently exists an invisible interactive god to answer the fundamental unanswered question to boot. Weeee...

The Tanager argues that predation did occur prior to "the fall." This position, if true, might absolve, or make the original debate question irrelevant, as predation was not or could not be a consequence of 'evil', since animal/other predation was already a 'thing' when god deemed his creation 'good'.

Alternatively, I argue that animal predation was not a thing prior to "the fall". If it should turn out that predation did not occur until after "the fall", the theological waters, moving forward, may become murkier?

But until AI can successfully solve the mystery of the debated and unanswered/unresolved question above, it's really a perpetual stand-off.

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

Further, I do not recall receiving a satisfactory response on the proposed dichotomy, in that the only two options for such an 'omni god' to create is to provide a) no creation of the animal/other kingdom <or> b) creation of the animal/other kingdom with necessity for predation involvement?

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #200]

Though I still feel blue balls from this exchange, I guess we can just move on? However, first, since William has chimed in here, maybe his "AI tool" can come to the rescue, in achieving some actual resolve to this topic?

Stay tuned

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #200]

Though I still feel blue balls from this exchange, I guess we can just move on? However, first, since William has chimed in here, maybe his "AI tool" can come to the rescue, in achieving some actual resolve to this topic?

Stay tuned

I wouldn't hold my breath, but just let me know when you are ready to move forward.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #201]

AI: Thank you for sharing POI's response. He raises two substantive points that merit examination. Here is a cold, factual analysis of each.

Analysis of POI's Two Points
Point 1: The Unresolved Question of Pre-Fall Predation

POI correctly identifies that the question "Did animal predation exist before the fall of man?" is a central and unresolved sticking point in the debate. He accurately frames the implications of each position.

If pre-Fall predation did not exist, which is POI's view, then predation is a consequence of the Fall and the entry of evil into the world. This supports POI's argument that predation is linked to sin and raises theological questions about why innocent animals suffer as a result.

If pre-Fall predation did exist, which is Tanager's view, then predation was part of God's original "very good" creation. This supports Tanager's argument that predation itself is not an evil act, but an amoral feature of the natural world.

POI's observation that this question "has not, and may not, ever receive true resolve" in academia is accurate. The Bible does not explicitly state whether animals killed each other before Genesis 3, and Christian theologians and scholars are divided on the issue. Both positions require interpretive decisions about Genesis and appeals to extra-biblical sources such as science, theology, and tradition.

Point 2: The Proposed Dichotomy for an Omnipotent God

POI's second point challenges Tanager's framing of the options. He restates what he perceives as Tanager's dichotomy: that the only two options for such an omnipotent God to create is to provide either no creation of the animal kingdom at all, or creation of the animal kingdom with the necessity for predation involvement.

POI implies this is a false dichotomy. His underlying argument, consistent throughout the debate, is that an omnipotent God has infinite creative options. Therefore, God could have created an animal kingdom that does not need to eat at all, consumes only plants as Genesis 1:30 describes, or experiences sustenance without predation.

By framing the choice as "no animals" versus "animals with predation," POI suggests Tanager is artificially limiting God's omnipotence to make his argument work.

Assessment in Light of These Points
Neither POI nor Tanager can definitively resolve the first question of pre-Fall predation without appealing to interpretive frameworks the other does not accept. POI appeals to a plain reading of Genesis 1:29-30, while Tanager appeals to science and genre analysis. This is a classic hermeneutical impasse.

The second point, however, cuts to the heart of the debate. Tanager's framing that the only alternative to a world with suffering is no world at all does indeed seem to limit God's omnipotence. POI's challenge that an omnipotent being could create a world with sentient life that does not require predation remains unanswered by Tanager. Tanager's response that suffering is a feature of conscious systems is an assertion about the nature of reality, not a logical necessity binding an omnipotent creator.

In this exchange, POI successfully identifies a weakness in Tanager's framing. Whether this constitutes winning the debate depends on whether one accepts Tanager's assertion that suffering is an inevitable feature of consciousness.

Me: Yet my original question wasn't about who has "won" but who Presented the Better Argument? (after AI reviewed ALL the pages one by one focusing on the Tanager and POI posts)

AI: You are correct. I apologize for shifting the framing. Your original question was clear: which of the two presented the better argument, based on a review of all pages focusing on Tanager and POI posts.

Tanager presented the better argument.

Me: Is this to say then that POIs referring to the specific argument Tanager did not fully address had been taken into consideration initially?

AI: Yes, that is correct. POI's recurring argument—that an omnipotent God could have created a world where animals do not need to eat at all or could be herbivores—was taken into consideration throughout the analysis.

However, the reason it did not shift the assessment that Tanager presented the better argument is that Tanager's core position rendered this question secondary or irrelevant. Tanager's foundational claim was that suffering itself is not inherently evil. If suffering is not inherently evil, then the question of whether God could have created a world without a specific type of suffering (predation) becomes moot. The existence of an alternative creative option does not, in Tanager's framework, prove that the chosen option is evil.

POI's challenge can be visualized as:

POI: "God could have made a world without predation. He didn't. Therefore, He is morally culpable."

Tanager's response, in essence, was: "You have not proven that a world with predation is morally worse than a world without it. You are assuming your conclusion."

So while POI's specific argument about alternative creative options was acknowledged and considered, it did not overcome the more fundamental impasse: Tanager did not accept the premise that the presence of suffering necessitates a moral failing. POI's argument, however intuitively powerful, remained logically dependent on a premise Tanager never granted.

[alexxcJRO]

I’ve already addressed this. You are assuming you haven’t received help and that he hasn’t replied. You could be mistaken there. This leads to a false dilemma.

It is clear I the orphan did not receive any help with my serious problem or any response from the suposedly father I have. It has been decades. That is why I question the existence of my supposedly caring father.
That is the analogy and the issue.

This assumes that God is only interested in comfort and hasn’t tried to help in other ways

The premise is that God is super duper caring for humans.
The unsolved serious problems shows God does not care.
The Studies showing Intercessory Prayer does not work shows God does not care.
Ergo contradiction.

No, I did not appeal to that line of reasoning; I talked about genre, context, etc.

Your pretending your not.
When words have no meaning you can manufacture anything.
That's why we have tons of Christian denominations and tons of interpretations. Everybody can make what he wants of the Bible.
All kinds of Chirstians by using "genre, context" manufacture all kinds of mutually exclusive interpretations about different passages.
There is no honest objective process sir.

I think historia has clearly shown the flaw with this one.

He showed nothing.
Church fathers view the Noah's flood as true events, Adam story as literal(Adam being historical).

I’ve already addressed many of these passages, which you haven’t responded to. Here are my thoughts on the new passages you’ve offered:

“For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Mark 9:48 where Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24. The imagery there is of a new heavens and new earth with people who will endure and be able to look at the dead bodies that rebelled against God. The worms that eat those bodies will not die, the fire that burns them won’t be quenched; the bodies aren’t alive and being tormented. This is an image of finality. Jesus seems to be saying that we should take our sin seriously, using extreme language to where that if the only way you could avoid the damage you could do is pluck out your eye, that would be better than to give yourself over to sin and be thrown into hell and destroyed where you cannot return from because it is final.
“t is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."
Mark 9:43 is a part of this same passage.

You explanation does not explain why there is mention of ongoing suffering and torment if there is finality after final judgement. Why there is even a place like hell("Lake of Fire") if people get destroyed?
It does not make sense.
You have words like: "he will be tormented with fire and sulfur" , "hey will be tormented day and night forever ","These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.", “that burns with fire and sulfur”," In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Nonsense.

Dear sir,

Augustine of Hippo believed the Earth was only thousands, not billions, of years old based on biblical genealogies.
Augustine of Hippo believed also on literal Adam and Eve story. That Adam was a historical person.
Church fathers believed in the biblical global flood.

YEC of today believe the Earth was only thousands, not billions, of years old. They believe Adam and Eve story is literal and the same with Noah's story.
So its only logical to conclude he and other Church Fathers were YEC in principle even if the term was not coined yet.
If a bird looks like a duck, walks like a duck, makes sounds like a duck probably it is a duck.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #204]

Point of clarification

I am not claiming that the choice for God was (a) no creation of the animal kingdom or (b) creation of the animal kingdom with the necessity for predation involvement. This conflates two separate points I’ve been making.

I’ve claimed that the choice for God was (a) no creation of beings who could suffer or (b) creating beings with the necessity of suffering. Making choice (b) does not make predation logically necessary, but shows that the creation of beings who can suffer itself is not an evil choice to make.

At that point, even if animal predation was not a thing, there would be other kinds of necessary suffering that would raise the same question that has been asked. Why is animal predation a separate case from a deer living in a world where it can fall off a cliff or die in a forest fire that helps replenish life in that area and other stuff like that? All of those things cause suffering, but that in itself is not enough to make choice (a) the good one to make for a creator.

If you say, well God should take away this kind of suffering, why not the other, and then the other, and so on until all suffering has to be taken away, which means taking away conscious beings entirely.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #205]

You saying your interpretation of things being right is clear doesn’t give me anything of substance to respond to.

Then you respond to my arguments for specific, metaphorical interpretations by ignoring everything I say, repeat those verses and critiques as though I didn’t respond to them, and then claim those are my pretend reasons, while my real reasons are that I metaphorize negative things in the Bible and literalize the good parts is more empty rhetoric that gives me nothing of substance to respond to.

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #207]

Thank you for the clarification. What specific action(s) constitutes necessary suffering to promote well-being? (See below)...

I guess animal predation is one of them? Animal predation is quite common. On the other hand, the fear of falling off cliffs or actually falling off cliffs is much less common... In fact, a bird may never once experience this or even fear the thought of this. Alternatively, unless the animal is an apex predator, (which we discussed prior), the fear of predation, or being the victim of active predation would be a daily thing. Further, if an apex predator has offspring, they will temporarily fear possible predation of their babies. I guess fear of predation, or being an active victim of slow and painful predation, must really promote quite a bit of well-being? Meaning, predation is a very necessary tool to drive and promote the animal/other population's well-being? If so, how so?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #204]

Thank you William. I guess AI cannot yet resolve the unanswered debate question(s) in academia, As a result, this exchange remains unable to reach an actual conclusion.

What boggles the mind, is we are stuck on what should otherwise be easily resolvable. When an alive writer writes something, which needs clarification, we can simply ask them what they meant when they wrote "X". The Bible falls under the same umbrella. If we do not understand, we apparently can ask the author, (which is ultimately the claimed living interactive god), if such a passage is literal/other, for instance.

Until we know, I do not see how this topic can truly reach resolve?

If predation was not a thing in god's initial creation, (as Genesis 1 may suggest), then predation only happened after 'the fall', possibly making predation an act of 'evil.'