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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Interesting perspective

It's always a joy to hear your unique take on things, my friend.

I gotta fess I don't see me refuting your position, even if I might not embrace it.

[POI]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #316]

The ball remains in your court. Post 317 and/or 330. Honestly, post 330 might speed things along.?.?.

[Shem Yoshi]

I dont think you can say animals are aware because human choose to treat animals with compassion. How a human chooses to treat an animal does not mean that animal is aware of suffering. If you want to ask why the human might choose to treat an animal with compassion? Maybe it gives the human comfort? Maybe the human thinks the animal is his friend or something? Maybe the human believes in being a good steward to the earth and all living creatures in it including plants, and rock formations and whatever. Whatever the case of the human actions, that doesnt mean the animal is suddenly self-aware.

I mean we could ask why people treat plants well, and care for plants... It certainly doesnt mean the plant is self-aware.

[POI]

Looks like you are trying to muddy the waters. Sorry. I'll explain below...

I dont think you can say animals are aware because human choose to treat animals with compassion.

But that's not what I'm saying. We use 'observation' to assess if a dog, for instance, is happy, or is in pain, or is "suffering", etc... If you grab a leash, and ask your dog if they want to go for a walk; many dogs will --- yelp, jump up and down, run in circles, and look at the front door. Is it just a coincidence they did this, the second they see the leash? Or, is it connected to an action? Now, you may still say they are not aware of their own perceived joy. But in what sense exactly? If they respond to your specific given stimuli, are they aware of what's going on, or not?

How a human chooses to treat an animal does not mean that animal is aware of suffering.

I do not disagree here at all. Some have pet rocks, some talk to plants, etc.... I'm speaking about animals which interact "observably."

If you want to ask why the human might choose to treat an animal with compassion? Maybe it gives the human comfort? Maybe the human thinks the animal is his friend or something? Maybe the human believes in being a good steward to the earth and all living creatures in it including plants, and rock formations and whatever. Whatever the case of the human actions, that doesnt mean the animal is suddenly self-aware.

So "animal cruelty" isn't a real thing? Is this your claim? If so, I guess this entire website, in (brackets), is just as imaginary, as many atheists may perceive your believed upon holy book --> (https://www.humanesociety.org/resources ... -and-stats).

I mean we could ask why people treat plants well, and care for plants... It certainly doesnt mean the plant is self-aware.

Again, not talking about plants. Talking about animals with observable attributes of happiness, pain, suffering, etc....

I'm "steelmaning" your argument here....So I ask, if a god is truly loving, why subject unaware animals to perceived and/or seemingly observation suffering? What's the point?

[Shem Yoshi]

Looks like you are trying to muddy the waters. Sorry. I'll explain below...

I dont think you can say animals are aware because human choose to treat animals with compassion.

But that's not what I'm saying. We use 'observation' to assess if a dog, for instance, is happy, or is in pain, or is "suffering", etc... If you grab a leash, and ask your dog if they want to go for a walk; many dogs will --- yelp, jump up and down, run in circles, and look at the front door. Is it just a coincidence they did this, the second they see the leash? Or, is it connected to an action? Now, you may still say they are not aware of their own perceived joy. But in what sense exactly? If they respond to your specific given stimuli, are they aware of what's going on, or not?

How a human chooses to treat an animal does not mean that animal is aware of suffering.

I do not disagree here at all. Some have pet rocks, some talk to plants, etc.... I'm speaking about animals which interact "observably."

If you want to ask why the human might choose to treat an animal with compassion? Maybe it gives the human comfort? Maybe the human thinks the animal is his friend or something? Maybe the human believes in being a good steward to the earth and all living creatures in it including plants, and rock formations and whatever. Whatever the case of the human actions, that doesnt mean the animal is suddenly self-aware.

So "animal cruelty" isn't a real thing? Is this your claim? If so, I guess this entire website, in (brackets), is just as imaginary, as many atheists may perceive your believed upon holy book --> (https://www.humanesociety.org/resources ... -and-stats).

I mean we could ask why people treat plants well, and care for plants... It certainly doesnt mean the plant is self-aware.

Again, not talking about plants. Talking about animals with observable attributes of happiness, pain, suffering, etc....

I'm "steelmaning" your argument here....So I ask, if a god is truly loving, why subject unaware animals to perceived and/or seemingly observation suffering? What's the point?

No one is debating if an animal can feel the stimuli of pain. They are debating whether that dog can be aware of suffering... I am pretty sure everyone agrees dogs can feel stimuli, but as bronumb pointed out above, there is a difference between pain and suffering.

It could be a real question of what kind of awareness living creatures have, you could reasonably believe a dog is more aware then a worm, or a primate more aware then a fish, but none the less I dont believe anyone is saying that dogs dont feel pain, like what you are suggesting when you bring up observing a dog reacting to stimuli.

But even if a dog could be aware of suffering (which im not saying they are but IF it is), the fact of the matter is, is that God could allow this and still be loving. God could allow all the suffering in the world and still be a loving God, in fact God could simply be graceful toward suffering. God could have compassion for creatures even though they suffer. God could love creatures even while they suffer. Why God might not act could be debated for many reasons, but I dont think you can conclude that a loving God doesnt exists because of it.

[Shem Yoshi]

One question might be, does the inaction of a person while they witness suffering make that person an evil person?

If someone doesnt act, does that mean they are evil or non loving?

I dont think you can come to that conclusion, we probably have examples all around us where people dont act but still love.

[POI]

But even if a dog could be 1) aware of suffering (which im not saying they are but IF it is), the fact of the matter is, is that 2) God could allow this and still be loving. God could allow all the suffering in the world and still be a loving God, in fact God could simply be graceful toward suffering. 3) God could have compassion for creatures even though they suffer. 4) God could love creatures even while they suffer. 5) Why God might not act could be debated for many reasons, but I dont think you can conclude that a loving God doesnt exists because of it.

I'm attempting to steelman your position, to see if this argument presents a problem for Christianity:

Dogs don't really suffer. Okay? But you have yet to explain how this is not the case? In fact, your argument, thus far, is to quibble about what is suffering? Do we really need to chase this rabbit trail? Can we not just pass/go, and admit pain does not always lead to suffering? And on the contrary, pleasure is sometimes a byproduct of suffering? Until you give reason(s) as to why animals do not suffer, then the presented website in the last post still stands, as it relates to (animal cruelty). I asked you a direct question.... Is animal cruelty not really a thing? It's a (yes/no) question. The fact that you ducked out of answering, is quite telling.... Thus, I'm answering for you, and assuming that you believe animals do suffer. So here we go...

1) Dogs suffer
2) God allows it and is still loving?
3) God has compassion for animals who suffer?
4) God loves all the suffering animals?
5) So why does God allow animals to suffer if he is compassionate, loving, and can intervene?

[POI]

One question might be, does the inaction of a person while they witness suffering make that person an evil person?

If someone doesnt act, does that mean they are evil or non loving?

I dont think you can come to that conclusion, we probably have examples all around us where people dont act but still love.

All worthy questions, but more applicable for "the problem of evil". Where they can all be argued away; via 'free will" alone.

We are speaking about a differing topic. Which is, "the problem of animal evil". What is the purpose of animal suffering?

[Shem Yoshi]

What if through suffering was a way God could love something?

[William]

What if through suffering was a way God could love something?

Perhaps you should reevaluate your god concept, rather than cloth it as something somewhat sadistic/psychopathic?