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?'

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

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?'

[Replying to POI in post #230]

Funny William. I'm lightly touching on the 'divine hiddenness' of it all.

Yeah. Me too POI. This is what I have deduced so far.

It is the assumption that those who declare God Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent (be they "for" or "against" such an entity) which gives rise to frameworks which are unresolvable by their very construct.
These attributes create the very tension the debate explores. If God isn't assumed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, the problem of evil dissolves. A limited God could have perfectly good reasons for creating carnivores that we simply cannot grasp from those frameworks, and might not have been able to do better.

This observation exposes something neither those "for"(believers) nor "against" (skeptics) and omni god can address: the entire debate rests on an assumption about God's nature that neither has defended. They argue about whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would create carnivores, but neither questions whether such a God exists in the first place.

Even the thread Opening Post frames the bible God in this way. So the thing is - the supernaturalists framed the God in this way, and the skeptics then jumped in boots and all essentially leading the skeptics down whatever paths they want to, and the skeptics following blindly each thinking one can out-argue the other - rinse and repeat - historically for hundreds of years. Essentially not a case of "big blue balls" but rather a case of Huge YAWN. (The impasse Passage - a great canyon in the wilderness of pointless rhetoric)

Skeptics pride themselves on questioning everything - except, apparently, the very framing handed to them by the supernaturalists they oppose. They have accepted the battlefield chosen for them, never asking whether the battle itself is worth fighting.

The thread is a perfect microcosm of this. Skeptic and Believer can argue for hundreds of posts about whether an omni-God could create carnivores. Neither has asked: why are we assuming this is the right question? Neither has stepped back and asked: "Perhaps the error is in the premise?"

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #231]

Then might I suggest creating a topic and asking the 'right' question(s). Or direct all to the one you already created and express your position accordingly.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #231]

Then might I suggest creating a topic and asking the 'right' question(s). Or direct all to the one you already created and express your position accordingly.

Would you be interested in contributing to such a thread? Given I have one and you haven't, what are you actually suggesting POI?

I think it is more helpful (at least to other readers) that I continue pointing out what the dynamics involved in THIS thread actually are. Something of substance to bridge at least the understanding of WHY the YAWN. even exists.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #231]

Then might I suggest creating a topic and asking the 'right' question(s). Or direct all to the one you already created and express your position accordingly.

Would you be interested in contributing to such a thread? Given I have one and you haven't, what are you actually suggesting POI?

Are you referring to the "CCA" thread? I'm waiting for you and Tanager to hash it out to your conclusion(s). Kind of like how you started chiming in on this one, once we started to reach conclusion(s).

I think it is more helpful (at least to other readers) that I continue pointing out what the dynamics involved in THIS thread actually are. Something of substance to bridge at least the understanding of WHY the YAWN. even exists.

The contribution is appreciated, but I doubt all on-lookers are experiencing the same level of 'yawn' as you are, but I could very well be mistaken. Personally, I gained further insight, or a new perspective for this topic, as "the problem of animal suffering" seems to be an issue skeptics bring up to believers from time to time. Since this topic was interesting to (me), I opted to engage. Your contribution, though appreciated, is not asked for or requested. You are free to do as you please. As for me, not all topics interest me, just like not all topics posted here interest you.

If you have a specific point you would like my input upon, please do share, and I will do my best to oblige.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #234]

Are you referring to the "CCA" thread? I'm waiting for you and Tanager to hash it out to your conclusion(s). Kind of like how you started chiming in on this one, once we started to reach conclusion(s).

I am referring to whatever thread you were referring to. The dynamic between Tanager and I is very different from the dynamic between you and he.

I chimed in as early as page four of this thread.

[William]

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?'

This is the essential question of the whole argument and it depends on an omnipotent and omniscient God being the case.
Where does this concept come from, that I should accept that any creator of this universe would have to be an omnipotent and omniscient God?

If you can enlighten me on this, perhaps I can better answer your question. That is the first hurdle.

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.

What does a child know about such things? A child will curse its parents for sending it to its room, grounding it, or taking privileges away from it. A child will claim "you don't love me" (or variants of) when it does not get what it thinks of as theirs by entitlement.

The Hebrew God doesn't appear to care what childish thoughts have to say about Him. The Hebrew God, as portrayed in the texts, doesn't seem to be the sort of being who would be particularly moved by human arguments about what a loving deity 'should' do. He often appears to operate on a different set of priorities entirely.

The Hebrew God doesn't appear to be the same entity proposed as omnipotent and omniscient by those who do the proposing.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #235]

Are there any religious/theological topics left, (under the sun), which both have not already been exhaustively debated ad nauseum, as well as also being engaging enough to avoid the 'yawn'?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #235]

Are there any religious/theological topics left, (under the sun), which both have not already been exhaustively debated ad nauseum, as well as also being engaging enough to avoid the 'yawn'?

See post #236
From personal experience, this does not get discussed much at all.

Also - the YAWN was not about what does or does not get discussed or about what is or isn't "engaging enough". It is about two participants (Atheist Vs Theist) starting off from irreconcilable positions (structural impasse) before proceeding with argument.

The YAWN not is yawning at the topic; its yawning at the predictable loop the structural impasse framing produces.

[POI]

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?'

1) This is the essential question of the whole argument and it depends on an omnipotent and omniscient God being the case.
Where does this concept come from, that I should accept that any creator of this universe would have to be an omnipotent and omniscient God?

If you can enlighten me on this, perhaps I can better answer your question. That is the first hurdle.

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.

2) What does a child know about such things? A child will curse its parents for sending it to its room, grounding it, or taking privileges away from it. A child will claim "you don't love me" (or variants of) when it does not get what it thinks of as theirs by entitlement.

The Hebrew God doesn't appear to care what childish thoughts have to say about Him. The Hebrew God, as portrayed in the texts, doesn't seem to be the sort of being who would be particularly moved by human arguments about what a loving deity 'should' do. He often appears to operate on a different set of priorities entirely.

The Hebrew God doesn't appear to be the same entity proposed as omnipotent and omniscient by those who do the proposing.

1) IS the Bible god asserted to possess such 'omni' qualities? This may be another one of those unresolvable questions, like how we are not sure as to whether or not Genesis asserts that all animals were once plant eaters?
2) I reckon this question was a bit hyperbole, in that 'common sense' directs such a conclusion about observed animal predation; much in the same way 'common sense' may direct one's inference in that "child rape" is bad?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #239]

I'm not asking whether the omni-God is defensible. I'm asking: if we set that construct aside and just look at what's actually presented - a creator, yes, but one with specific portrayed characteristics, priorities, and limits - then what are we left with? What can we actually say about that entity?.

Because - the question asked is "Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores."

That's the conversation I'm interested in