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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #332]

I have already responded to everything. If you feel something is not responded to, you can make a new post and I will address anything that needs to be addressed.

No, you did not response to post 317. But that's okay. And no, making a new thread about the same topic would be silly. Allow me to try and push this forward a bit....

I'm going to steelman the $h1+ out of your argument in bold blue, from post 301 and beyond.... You are welcome.....

Animals do not actually suffer. They appear to, via human 'observation', but we are flat out wrong. Due to the topic of divine hiddenness, god's plan is to create the illusion of animal suffering, to stay in line with divine hiddenness. If we humans "observed" that animals did not suffer, we would get too suspicious.

Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further.

If you think that is a steelman of my view, then you are showing how much you lack reading comprehension because that is not what I wrote. I merely offered the possibility that animals might not actually suffer. You haven't done anything to show for sure they do suffer, either.

Surely, there is better than this offered here, right?

Nonetheless, I will continue to respond to threads made that are not well thought out.

LOL! Speaking of "reading comprehension", you might want to read (again), what I wrote at the bottom of my last response. Allow me to spoon feed it to you:

"Feel free to intervene, and correct any strawman(s) here before we proceed further."

So, if we just completely concede, and establish that animals do not suffer, why do animals <appear> to suffer? Please tell us? Does it have to do with 'divine hiddenness', or is it other?

I already explained this in my first post. I am not sure why I need to repeat it here, but alright.

If animals do not suffer but appear to, they appear to because otherwise the world would seem fake. We would wonder, why do we suffer and animals not suffer? Imagine a world where humans suffer but animals do not even appear to suffer. They just act normal when your rip their arm off. They act calm and okay with it. We would feel like something is wrong with the world. It would make us feel odd and disconnected. Is this world real?

We would know we were special for sure.

If God knows suffering is how we grow and become what God wants us to become by our own free choices, and if divine hiddenness is also part of that process, then animals must also suffer, or at least appear to suffer. I stated all this in my first post.

I had to go back and check that was your post not some goddless unbeliever, because it actually reads like a post arguing against your position. We don't even need to get sucked into the debate about whether animals suffer if they lose an arm. Some do,some don't. Whatever it is, their species evolved for them to do that. It is a survival mechanism - either yell when you lose an arm or just grow a new one.

[brunumb]

You seem confused on the matter. The angel being who came to be known as satan and devil, was good, a loving servant of the true God. God placed him over the garden( earth) he got jealous and wanted worship, thus he rebelled and lied to Eve to screw it all up.

I think it is you who is confused. Satan was not the serpent in the garden.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:14  And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Time for some more creative spin I suppose.

[POI]

I'm going to follow your argument where ever it leads us. Here we go...

Mortals asked for this sick satan ruled system of things in the Eden rebellion. It was they who brought the knowledge of both good and bad into this world. Nothing is immune. God created mortals to know only good. Mortals caused this by kicking God in the teeth believing a lie from one who did 0 for them. Where as God handed all of it to them free of charge. God is letting it be proved once and for all time. Is it best mortals know only good, or is it best to know both good and bad. God was 100% correct-bad sucks.

I'm going to try and just grant as much as I can here, for sake in brevity. 'The fall of man' caused 'suffering' to reign upon all --- (humans, animals, insects, etc.). Okay... Let's continue....

So I will now ask you logical question(s).... Animals, reptiles, etc, were on this planet before humans, right? What the heck did the carnivores eat before the 'fall of man'?

[POI]

If animals do not suffer but appear to, they appear to because otherwise the world would seem fake. We would wonder, why do we suffer and animals not suffer?

Please pick a position.

A) Animals really suffer
B) God makes animals appear to suffer?

Imagine a world where humans suffer but animals do not even appear to suffer. They just act normal when your rip their arm off. They act calm and okay with it. We would feel like something is wrong with the world. It would make us feel odd and disconnected. Is this world real? We would know we were special for sure.

I'm not going to engage this argument, until you pick A) or B).

If God knows suffering is how we grow and become what God wants us to become by our own free choices, and if divine hiddenness is also part of that process, then animals must also suffer, or at least appear to suffer..

Same as above.

[benchwarmer]

If animals do not suffer but appear to, they appear to because otherwise the world would seem fake. We would wonder, why do we suffer and animals not suffer?

Please pick a position.

A) Animals really suffer
B) God makes animals appear to suffer?

Just chiming in to say, this entire apologetic of 'perhaps animals don't suffer' is quite a laughable way to try and tap dance around the obvious problem it highlights with the God of the Bible (or any all-loving god).

AFG mentioned we could talk to humans and determine if they are actually suffering. This actually fails. Not all humans are capable of intelligent conversation (i.e. babies). If you follow the logic presented by AFG, perhaps babies don't suffer? Would it be wise to operate under that belief? The rational (I hope) will say 'of course we know babies can suffer' under the same definition (whatever that might be) that we adults can suffer.

Since we know (thank you science) that many animals share a very similar nervous system, etc with humans, we can of course infer from that alone that they suffer. Anyone who has accidentally stepped on a paw or tail knows darn well animals can suffer. To pretend that maybe they are not actually suffering is one of the weakest excuses I've seen in order to remove all blame from their supposedly blameless God.

It honestly baffles me why some go to such lengths to defend the undefendable. I think a more rational approach would be to abandon the obviously flawed view of a god, and keep searching to find the correct one (if such a thing even exists). In other words, we know we and other animals (we are animals ourselves) can suffer. Trying to shoehorn an illogical image of a god onto all this makes no sense.

Maybe there is a god or are gods. Our observation shows that it/they are not intervening when we or animals suffer. If one wants to start building a picture of a possible god, I suggest making the the hypothesis fit the data, not sweeping the inconvenient data under the rug and clinging to the wrong hypothesis.

*Edited to fix my blunder of 'making the data fit the hypothesis'. Should be the other way around as fixed above.

[POI]

If animals do not suffer but appear to, they appear to because otherwise the world would seem fake. We would wonder, why do we suffer and animals not suffer?

Please pick a position.

A) Animals really suffer
B) God makes animals appear to suffer?

Just chiming in to say, this entire apologetic of 'perhaps animals don't suffer' is quite a laughable way to try and tap dance around the obvious problem it highlights with the God of the Bible (or any all-loving god).

AFG mentioned we could talk to humans and determine if they are actually suffering. This actually fails. Not all humans are capable of intelligent conversation (i.e. babies). If you follow the logic presented by AFG, perhaps babies don't suffer? Would it be wise to operate under that belief? The rational (I hope) will say 'of course we know babies can suffer' under the same definition (whatever that might be) that we adults can suffer.

Since we know (thank you science) that many animals share a very similar nervous system, etc with humans, we can of course infer from that alone that they suffer. Anyone who has accidentally stepped on a paw or tail knows darn well animals can suffer. To pretend that maybe they are not actually suffering is one of the weakest excuses I've seen in order to remove all blame from their supposedly blameless God.

It honestly baffles me why some go to such lengths to defend the undefendable. I think a more rational approach would be to abandon the obviously flawed view of a god, and keep searching to find the correct one (if such a thing even exists). In other words, we know we and other animals (we are animals ourselves) can suffer. Trying to shoehorn an illogical image of a god onto all this makes no sense.

Maybe there is a god or are gods. Our observation shows that it/they are not intervening when we or animals suffer. If one wants to start building a picture of a possible god, I suggest making the data fit the hypothesis, not sweeping the inconvenient data under the rug and clinging to the wrong hypothesis.

Looks like he's getting ready to defend a position that --> animals either appear to suffer, or really suffer, to help humans grow (and/or) avoid confusion, etc...

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a weird thing, theist-think, where 'how things appear' is clung to and science that disproves it is simply dismissed as human opinion, yet how things appear (animals suffer like humans do) is dismissed in favour of ...well, I'm not even sure it's Dogma but an individual suggestion which is without any validity just to escape from part of the problem of evil.

Again, it's not about presenting lockdown evidence, like T Rex was always a meat - eater so could never have ate grass before the Fall, as it's just dismissed for undisprovables like 'there is some explanation'. Though our pal A4G is not in evolution - denial, but does take this idea that animals do not suffer. A lizard loses it's tail as an escape measure and grows a new one. Pull a cats' tail and it'll let you know that it isn't detachable.

[JoeyKnothead]

Pull a cats' tail and it'll let you know that it isn't detachable.

It is if ya pull hard enough

Please don't let Purple Knight know I said that.

[POI]

It's a weird thing, theist-think, where 'how things appear' is clung to and science that disproves it is simply dismissed as human opinion, yet how things appear (animals suffer like humans do) is dismissed in favour of ...well, I'm not even sure it's Dogma but an individual suggestion which is without any validity just to escape from part of the problem of evil.

Again, it's not about presenting lockdown evidence, like T Rex was always a meat - eater so could never have ate grass before the Fall, as it's just dismissed for undisprovables like 'there is some explanation'. Though our pal A4G is not in evolution - denial, but does take this idea that animals do not suffer. A lizard loses it's tail as an escape measure and grows a new one. Pull a cats' tail and it'll let you know that it isn't detachable.

I'm attempting to give AFG every opportunity to demonstrate that "the problem of animal suffering' is not one of Christianity's biggest problems. We shall see how this all plays out. But, just for the record, his ultimate argument may be that he can neither confirm nor deny as to whether (or not) animals suffer; but merely argues that they have to, or at least appear to, for us humans. But, EVEN IF this were the case, where does the Bible suggest any of this? I mean, is AFG pulling this straight from the keister? Other? Other?

[POI]

If animals do not suffer but appear to, they appear to because otherwise the world would seem fake. We would wonder, why do we suffer and animals not suffer?

Please pick a position.

A) Animals really suffer
B) God makes animals appear to suffer?

Just chiming in to say, this entire apologetic of 'perhaps animals don't suffer' is quite a laughable way to try and tap dance around the obvious problem it highlights with the God of the Bible (or any all-loving god).

AFG mentioned we could talk to humans and determine if they are actually suffering. This actually fails. Not all humans are capable of intelligent conversation (i.e. babies). If you follow the logic presented by AFG, perhaps babies don't suffer? Would it be wise to operate under that belief? The rational (I hope) will say 'of course we know babies can suffer' under the same definition (whatever that might be) that we adults can suffer.

Since we know (thank you science) that many animals share a very similar nervous system, etc with humans, we can of course infer from that alone that they suffer. Anyone who has accidentally stepped on a paw or tail knows darn well animals can suffer. To pretend that maybe they are not actually suffering is one of the weakest excuses I've seen in order to remove all blame from their supposedly blameless God.

It honestly baffles me why some go to such lengths to defend the undefendable. I think a more rational approach would be to abandon the obviously flawed view of a god, and keep searching to find the correct one (if such a thing even exists). In other words, we know we and other animals (we are animals ourselves) can suffer. Trying to shoehorn an illogical image of a god onto all this makes no sense.

Maybe there is a god or are gods. Our observation shows that it/they are not intervening when we or animals suffer. If one wants to start building a picture of a possible god, I suggest making the the hypothesis fit the data, not sweeping the inconvenient data under the rug and clinging to the wrong hypothesis.

*Edited to fix my blunder of 'making the data fit the hypothesis'. Should be the other way around as fixed above.

It would be nice if theists would just be honest and give more honest answers, such as....

"I have no idea why animals do suffer, or appear to suffer, but God must have a good reason for it..." Instead, we will read along, as he performs 'apologietics'.