Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[POI]

well i don't have an answer to 1 or 2. But i don't need to have an answer. There is no reason God shouldnt allow suffering.

You conveniently don't have an answer, because it presents a problem for you. I get it. If animals do not experience theodicy, and/or can not go to heaven, then their suffering is likely completely unnecessary. God merely created other sentient living things, which suffer, then die -- (period). What a 'loving' god. This is why it presents a problem for Christianity. God is love, right?

[Shem Yoshi]

well i don't have an answer to 1 or 2. But i don't need to have an answer. There is no reason God shouldnt allow suffering.

You conveniently don't have an answer, because it presents a problem for you. I get it. If animals do not experience theodicy, and/or can not go to heaven, then their suffering is likely completely unnecessary. God merely created other sentient living things, which suffer, then die -- (period). What a 'loving' god. This is why it presents a problem for Christianity. God is love, right?

You completely misrepresent me. How the heck anyone suppose to answer if an animal goes to heaven or not? They would just be guessing, there is no real scripture saying anything about it. I mean maybe revaluations gives imagery of animals at the throne of God, but it is total speculation being a book of strange imagery. There is no way for me to know, but you take it that I dodge answering the question because of the debate... It is like a strawman you have here.

I believe a loving God can allow animals to suffer, even if they dont go to heaven (but that is just and IF)

[TRANSPONDER]

well i don't have an answer to 1 or 2. But i don't need to have an answer. There is no reason God shouldnt allow suffering.

You conveniently don't have an answer, because it presents a problem for you. I get it. If animals do not experience theodicy, and/or can not go to heaven, then their suffering is likely completely unnecessary. God merely created other sentient living things, which suffer, then die -- (period). What a 'loving' god. This is why it presents a problem for Christianity. God is love, right?

You completely misrepresent me. How the heck anyone suppose to answer if an animal goes to heaven or not? They would just be guessing, there is no real scripture saying anything about it. I mean maybe revaluations gives imagery of animals at the throne of God, but it is total speculation being a book of strange imagery. There is no way for me to know, but you take it that I dodge answering the question because of the debate... It is like a strawman you have here.

I believe a loving God can allow animals to suffer, even if they dont go to heaven (but that is just and IF)

It's like this and plainly it is. The OP raises a major problem. It is one of the more frequent reasons why people deconvert (reading the Bible is the other). The apologetics given are excuses, shifting the blame, and appeal to faith. The excuses given don't convince those who aren't already convinced. Like the practicalities of heaven, let alone Hell. The problem of evil (suffering on earth) doesn't convince those who are not already convinced, and they (of course) come up with excuses, evasion and in the end, resorting to Faith. 'God knows what he is doing'.

The thing is that the debate is not about letting the believer reject any reasons to rethink and cling to Faith; it is about giving reasons why an impartial and open - minded person should believe (or credit) an intervening God.

I'd say, there is none. It fails on three levels. A possible cosmic creator ...debatable but that gap for god is still open. An intervening god.; No there is really no good evidence, by design, happenstance or miracle. These are all based on well - known human capacity to see patterns where there are none.

Lucy "Why does it always rain when I want to go outside?"

(Linus) "Actually is doesn't; you only remember the times you were disappointed and forget..."

"WHY DOES IT ALWAYS RAIN WHEN I WANT TO GO OUTSIDE!!!???"

"I guess you're just unlucky."

Third fail is - even if the former were validated, we don't know which god it is. Even if it's one of the man - made ones we have. I know exactly what happens - from a supposed surefire like 'Who made everything, then?' to 'No morality without God', once a creator or Moral Lawgiver is wangled onto the dissecting - table, we get the Leap of Faith (the real one, not the Theist counter - charge of the atheist leap of faith from something to nothing - which is a don't know, not a faith claim) all the way to the Bible and Jesus.

This is utterly unjustified and from a possible creator to Jesus...well it's an apologetics trick. Wangle God onto the credibility slab and then use Bible reliability to say which god it is.

I won't go into the Bible arguments here, it's not the topic, but none of them stand up - not historical support, prophecy or witness reliability. Rather like the shroud thread, the Bible initially looks persuasive, even if one doubts miracles. But the closer one looks, the more it doesn't quite stack up.

So, bottom line: First cause does not get you to Biblegod, and really, neither does the Bible.

[POI]

You completely misrepresent me. How the heck anyone suppose to answer if an animal goes to heaven or not? They would just be guessing, there is no real scripture saying anything about it.

If scripture does not mention a topic, it may still be a thing? God/Jesus cared not to mention if any other living creatures go to heaven or not? Was it not important enough to mention? Did he forget to mention it? Other? How about instead just going with the most logical answer.... If God does not care to mention it, it likely ain't happening?

I believe a loving God can allow animals to suffer, even if they dont go to heaven (but that is just and IF)

Makes little sense. What would be the point in their suffering? They will not achieve theodicy, and do not have the ability to choose.

[PolytheistWitch]

Well considering animals and man, as far as the god of Abraham, have a shared history IE they were all kicked out of the garden and they were all but a few destroyed the flood it would seem to reason that they also have the same afterlife.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #310]

Do you have an answer there as well? Or, is it one of those head-scratchers? Inquiring minds would like to know? Maybe create a new thread for discussion, as it really is apples and oranges, in compared to this presented problem.

Yes, for those actually interested in my answer can read it here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... -the-world

1) Are you sure you actually watched the entire video? (Predation) is the best solution, really?

Yes, I am sure that I watched the whole video. I did not say predation is the best solution.

Again, did you even watch the video? He responds to this... What were his responses and why are they off base?

He doesn't fully respond to this, actually. He points out that we see they suffer, but that doesn't mean they do suffer actually. We can only go by their actions. They cannot speak to us and explain what they are experiencing. We also see from several tests that animals do not have an inner experience. They are not aware of thinking about thinking.

Did you actually watch the video? If so, you would have some answers here. Your 'defense' here, is to argue for "solipsism". And if this is your argument, then all bets are off... But maybe that's how you wiggle out of the argument?

I don't know how to say this without being rude, but can you try to understand what is being typed? I did not argue for solipsism. I pointed out the fact that we cannot know how animals feels. We must go by observations. Do you have some other way by which you come to know what animals experience?

I tell you what... Let's test this out. If you have a pet, or someone you know has a pet, try "torturing" that pet and see if it is really aware of the actual subjected torture, or not.... Let me know how it goes?

So it seems you agree that you can only go by your observations of the animal to determine if the animal is suffering. You do not know what inner experience it has if any.

I'm pretty sure we exchanged about this before. And I don't recall any good reasons.

You don't seem to recall what we talked about only a few days ago, so that is not saying much IMO.

Wait a minute, do animals actually suffer or not?

Do you have some method that can answer this question with certainty?

And your argument here, is that the animals have to suffer too, so we do not ask questions? Well, I'm asking questions anyways. Why do animals suffer if they cannot achieve theodicy and/or choose to follow/worship?

This is not a counter to my answer. It is a non-point, really. You are not addressing my actual point, which is if animals did not suffer and humans did, this would be against divine hiddenness.

As far as if animals are in heaven. Heaven is not a place somewhere, but the bible talks about a future new earth, which is for the believers. It talks of animals there.

Isaiah 65:25 it says, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the Lord.”

[POI]

Yes, for those actually interested in my answer can read it here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... -the-world

Um, post it here, in a new thread, so we can actually engage.

I did not say predation is the best solution.

Here is what you said: "There needs to be an ecosystem and predators play a role in that." You offered no other solution than Craig. So what is it?

He doesn't fully respond to this, actually. He points out that we see they suffer, but that doesn't mean they do suffer actually. We can only go by their actions. They cannot speak to us and explain what they are experiencing. We also see from several tests that animals do not have an inner experience. They are not aware of thinking about thinking.

So your argument is that animals are all reduced to the likes of amoeba? Meaning, they respond to stimuli by mere reflex alone?

We must go by observations. Do you have some other way by which you come to know what animals experience?

Funny how "observation" works for many things just fine, but here, we must remain more skeptical.

So it seems you agree that you can only go by your observations of the animal to determine if the animal is suffering. You do not know what inner experience it has if any.

So if a dog squeals, when you step on their tail, it might actually be a squeal of joy? Or maybe, it's just a coincidence they squeal at the same time their tail was stepped on.

You don't seem to recall what we talked about only a few days ago, so that is not saying much IMO.

Lackluster and/or unwarranted responses are sometimes not very memorable But I will be happy to pull up the exchanges, for more review, if you feel the need to do so....

Do you have some method that can answer this question with certainty?

Yes, we must remain very skeptical here. But other stuff, we must practice faith/credulity. Got it...

my actual point, which is if animals did not suffer and humans did, this would be against divine hiddenness.

Again, your argument here, is that the animals have to suffer too, so we do not ask questions?

As far as if animals are in heaven. Heaven is not a place somewhere, but the bible talks about a future new earth, which is for the believers. It talks of animals there.

Isaiah 65:25 it says, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the Lord.”

So animals reside in Heaven then? If so, and you admit they have no awareness, what is the point?

[Shem Yoshi]

well i don't have an answer to 1 or 2. But i don't need to have an answer. There is no reason God shouldnt allow suffering.

You conveniently don't have an answer, because it presents a problem for you. I get it. If animals do not experience theodicy, and/or can not go to heaven, then their suffering is likely completely unnecessary. God merely created other sentient living things, which suffer, then die -- (period). What a 'loving' god. This is why it presents a problem for Christianity. God is love, right?

You completely misrepresent me. How the heck anyone suppose to answer if an animal goes to heaven or not? They would just be guessing, there is no real scripture saying anything about it. I mean maybe revaluations gives imagery of animals at the throne of God, but it is total speculation being a book of strange imagery. There is no way for me to know, but you take it that I dodge answering the question because of the debate... It is like a strawman you have here.

I believe a loving God can allow animals to suffer, even if they dont go to heaven (but that is just and IF)

It's like this and plainly it is. The OP raises a major problem. It is one of the more frequent reasons why people deconvert (reading the Bible is the other). The apologetics given are excuses, shifting the blame, and appeal to faith. The excuses given don't convince those who aren't already convinced. Like the practicalities of heaven, let alone Hell. The problem of evil (suffering on earth) doesn't convince those who are not already convinced, and they (of course) come up with excuses, evasion and in the end, resorting to Faith. 'God knows what he is doing'.

The thing is that the debate is not about letting the believer reject any reasons to rethink and cling to Faith; it is about giving reasons why an impartial and open - minded person should believe (or credit) an intervening God.

I'd say, there is none. It fails on three levels. A possible cosmic creator ...debatable but that gap for god is still open. An intervening god.; No there is really no good evidence, by design, happenstance or miracle. These are all based on well - known human capacity to see patterns where there are none.

Lucy "Why does it always rain when I want to go outside?"

(Linus) "Actually is doesn't; you only remember the times you were disappointed and forget..."

"WHY DOES IT ALWAYS RAIN WHEN I WANT TO GO OUTSIDE!!!???"

"I guess you're just unlucky."

Third fail is - even if the former were validated, we don't know which god it is. Even if it's one of the man - made ones we have. I know exactly what happens - from a supposed surefire like 'Who made everything, then?' to 'No morality without God', once a creator or Moral Lawgiver is wangled onto the dissecting - table, we get the Leap of Faith (the real one, not the Theist counter - charge of the atheist leap of faith from something to nothing - which is a don't know, not a faith claim) all the way to the Bible and Jesus.

This is utterly unjustified and from a possible creator to Jesus...well it's an apologetics trick. Wangle God onto the credibility slab and then use Bible reliability to say which god it is.

I won't go into the Bible arguments here, it's not the topic, but none of them stand up - not historical support, prophecy or witness reliability. Rather like the shroud thread, the Bible initially looks persuasive, even if one doubts miracles. But the closer one looks, the more it doesn't quite stack up.

So, bottom line: First cause does not get you to Biblegod, and really, neither does the Bible.

Well I believe in the Bible, and I think you are wrong when you say "This is utterly unjustified and from a possible creator to Jesus...well it's an apologetics trick. Wangle God onto the credibility slab and then use Bible reliability to say which god it is."... As a Christian I believe in Jesus Christ and because of that we can believe in a creator, and see that the world and its order points to God. It certainly is no apologetic trick to believe in Jesus and therefor have faith in a creator God, and see evidence of things like the universe coming into existence. I would say Jesus is the foundation of that belief in them, there is no trick there. You just dont believe it is linked, but if God rose Jesus from the dead then we can see God the creator at work in our world.

And yes I certainly believe in Faith... Hallelujah... We can believe there is a foundation of order in the universe... And certainly everyone has to have faith in that to induce anything in knowledge, there is no room to criticize faith as if its baseless... Faith is needed in the human consciousness to induce anything, and skepticism cant even prove that reality exists.... And I am a skeptic, so I am not saying there is anything wrong with questioning things, but dont act like you know some kind of truth based on skepticism. Because you dont. Like you know something is false, like the Bible... You really dont know that unless you have some kind of faith in inducing such a conclusion.

As far as the topic of this thread, the fact of the matter is is that a loving God might allow suffering... This thread is completely based on the idea that this is impossible, but clearly it is possible, in fact we have even come to the conclusion that suffering can be loving and good in itself. And also that it is a necessity of life.

[brunumb]

I pointed out the fact that we cannot know how animals feels. We must go by observations. Do you have some other way by which you come to know what animals experience?

Do you apply the same reasoning to observations of humans? Do you not believe that animals other than humans have nervous systems that allow them to feel pain? Isn't the endurance of severe pain what we consider to be physical suffering? I'm sensing a heavy dose of denial in your response.

[brunumb]

As far as the topic of this thread, the fact of the matter is is that a loving God might allow suffering... This thread is completely based on the idea that this is impossible, but clearly it is possible, in fact we have even come to the conclusion that suffering can be loving and good in itself. And also that it is a necessity of life.

You may have reached that rather self-serving conclusion, but don't speak for others. I do not see suffering as loving and good or a necessity of life. Pain yes, but suffering no.