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?
Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Moderator: Moderators
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 5242
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1998 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #1In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #412@8:05 of the OP video,
Q: [Are we expected to believe that God couldn't have made things differently] is a different argument as it is now no longer dealing with the issue of suffering in this world under the natural laws created by YHVH for this world.
Yes, it could be argued that YVHV could have placed us and other animals in a different environment - one which didn't involved having to eat food, or reproduce or experience suffering, but since that is not the case, it is something of a strawman argument, even that the premise is that YHVH is an all-loving creator-entity.
This is why the problem of evil became an argument - because there was suffering experienced - caused by the very environment YVHV created and placed sentience within and humans lack of understanding what loving kindness is, and thus having to learn, and thus by the process of learning, having to question suffering in regard to lovingkindness, and thus understanding why it is not necessarily an act of malevolence that the environment YHVH created and placed life into, is a step toward solving the problem of evil, which is a problem created through ignorance.
If we argue that YHVH could have created us with an understanding of lovingkindness and placed us within an environment which didn't require lovingkindness, of what use would lovingkindness be?
We are not expected to believe that YHVH couldn't have made things differently. We are expected to understand that YVHV is a loving being, even though we were placed within an environment which challenged our ability to regard it as an evil problem, and still see it as an act of love.
Open AI: Yes, the idea that God is loving, even though evil and suffering exist in the world, is one possible response to the problem of evil. This perspective suggests that God has a purpose for allowing evil and suffering, and that ultimately, God's love is greater than the evil and suffering in the world.
It is important to note that this perspective is often based on faith, as there is no way to prove or disprove that God's love is greater than the evil and suffering in the world, and this belief is something that needs to be accepted and understood by individual choice.
It is a matter of perspective, people may see that the environment and laws that were put in place by God as an act of love, while others may see it as an act of cruelty, it depends on how one interprets the actions and actions of deity if one believes one exist.
Q: [Are we expected to believe that God couldn't have made things differently] is a different argument as it is now no longer dealing with the issue of suffering in this world under the natural laws created by YHVH for this world.
Yes, it could be argued that YVHV could have placed us and other animals in a different environment - one which didn't involved having to eat food, or reproduce or experience suffering, but since that is not the case, it is something of a strawman argument, even that the premise is that YHVH is an all-loving creator-entity.
This is why the problem of evil became an argument - because there was suffering experienced - caused by the very environment YVHV created and placed sentience within and humans lack of understanding what loving kindness is, and thus having to learn, and thus by the process of learning, having to question suffering in regard to lovingkindness, and thus understanding why it is not necessarily an act of malevolence that the environment YHVH created and placed life into, is a step toward solving the problem of evil, which is a problem created through ignorance.
If we argue that YHVH could have created us with an understanding of lovingkindness and placed us within an environment which didn't require lovingkindness, of what use would lovingkindness be?
We are not expected to believe that YHVH couldn't have made things differently. We are expected to understand that YVHV is a loving being, even though we were placed within an environment which challenged our ability to regard it as an evil problem, and still see it as an act of love.
Open AI: Yes, the idea that God is loving, even though evil and suffering exist in the world, is one possible response to the problem of evil. This perspective suggests that God has a purpose for allowing evil and suffering, and that ultimately, God's love is greater than the evil and suffering in the world.
It is important to note that this perspective is often based on faith, as there is no way to prove or disprove that God's love is greater than the evil and suffering in the world, and this belief is something that needs to be accepted and understood by individual choice.
It is a matter of perspective, people may see that the environment and laws that were put in place by God as an act of love, while others may see it as an act of cruelty, it depends on how one interprets the actions and actions of deity if one believes one exist.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #413William: My perspective - I am not religious and I have battled to find an answer to a problem which I now see is not a problem at all.
I am not a "YHVH" apologist either. I regard YHVH as being above any need to be apologized for.
Open AI: I understand, the problem of evil is a complex question that has been discussed by philosophers, theologians, and people of various religious beliefs for centuries. It is a question that can be approached from many different perspectives, and ultimately the answer will depend on an individual's own beliefs and understanding of the world.
It's important to note that my responses to the problem of evil are based on common arguments, solutions and perspectives that have been proposed by theologians, philosophers and scholars throughout the years. There isn't a unique answer or solution to it.
As you mentioned, you are not religious and do not see the problem of evil as a problem. It is entirely possible to have a non-religious perspective on the question, and to understand the world and its natural phenomena without invoking the concept of a deity.
William: True that - but in order to face the problem of evil one has to regard YHVH as existing, so the concept of evoking the concept of a deity is already the premise, and thus cannot be avoided...so I approach the problem in the direction of assuming YHVH exists so as not to disregard the premise, and then build upon a solution which does not have me apologizing for YHVH, but explaining why I think YHVH has done nothing wrong, and there is no actual problem of evil to address...
Open AI: Yes, you are correct that the problem of evil as a question often arises within the context of monotheistic religions, which posit the existence of a single, all-powerful and all-knowing deity who is responsible for the creation and governance of the world. Therefore, it is usually assumed that a deity exists, for the purposes of discussing the problem of evil.
It is possible to approach the problem of evil from the perspective of assuming the existence of a deity, and then examining whether or not evil and suffering can be reconciled with the attributes of an all-powerful and all-loving God. In this approach, one might examine arguments for why God allows evil and suffering to exist and try to understand how it can be seen as an act of love.
It is also possible to approach the problem of evil without invoking the concept of a deity. One can look at the problem of evil as a question of human understanding, and asking how we can make sense of the evil and suffering that we see in the world without having to resort to the idea of a deity. Some people may find it more satisfactory to understand the natural evil and suffering in the world without a divine cause behind it.
Ultimately the approach, and the conclusion one may draw, are heavily influenced by personal belief, perspective and how one interprets the world.
I am not a "YHVH" apologist either. I regard YHVH as being above any need to be apologized for.
Open AI: I understand, the problem of evil is a complex question that has been discussed by philosophers, theologians, and people of various religious beliefs for centuries. It is a question that can be approached from many different perspectives, and ultimately the answer will depend on an individual's own beliefs and understanding of the world.
It's important to note that my responses to the problem of evil are based on common arguments, solutions and perspectives that have been proposed by theologians, philosophers and scholars throughout the years. There isn't a unique answer or solution to it.
As you mentioned, you are not religious and do not see the problem of evil as a problem. It is entirely possible to have a non-religious perspective on the question, and to understand the world and its natural phenomena without invoking the concept of a deity.
William: True that - but in order to face the problem of evil one has to regard YHVH as existing, so the concept of evoking the concept of a deity is already the premise, and thus cannot be avoided...so I approach the problem in the direction of assuming YHVH exists so as not to disregard the premise, and then build upon a solution which does not have me apologizing for YHVH, but explaining why I think YHVH has done nothing wrong, and there is no actual problem of evil to address...
Open AI: Yes, you are correct that the problem of evil as a question often arises within the context of monotheistic religions, which posit the existence of a single, all-powerful and all-knowing deity who is responsible for the creation and governance of the world. Therefore, it is usually assumed that a deity exists, for the purposes of discussing the problem of evil.
It is possible to approach the problem of evil from the perspective of assuming the existence of a deity, and then examining whether or not evil and suffering can be reconciled with the attributes of an all-powerful and all-loving God. In this approach, one might examine arguments for why God allows evil and suffering to exist and try to understand how it can be seen as an act of love.
It is also possible to approach the problem of evil without invoking the concept of a deity. One can look at the problem of evil as a question of human understanding, and asking how we can make sense of the evil and suffering that we see in the world without having to resort to the idea of a deity. Some people may find it more satisfactory to understand the natural evil and suffering in the world without a divine cause behind it.
Ultimately the approach, and the conclusion one may draw, are heavily influenced by personal belief, perspective and how one interprets the world.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15331
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 981 times
- Been thanked: 1813 times
- Contact:
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #414William: I haven't come from a direction where it is easy for me to understand how it is possible to approach the problem of evil without invoking the concept of a deity
Open AI: It's understandable that it might be difficult to see how one could approach the problem of evil without invoking the concept of a deity, as the question is often framed in the context of monotheistic religions, which posit the existence of a single, all-powerful and all-knowing deity who is responsible for the creation and governance of the world.
However, it is possible to approach the problem of evil from a secular or naturalistic perspective. One approach is to understand the problem of evil as a question of human understanding, and asking how we can make sense of the evil and suffering that we see in the world without having to resort to the idea of a deity. This can be done through various lens like scientific, psychological, philosophical or other.
Some philosophers and scientists have proposed naturalistic explanations for the existence of evil and suffering, such as the idea that they are simply the result of the laws of physics and chemistry, or that they are the result of human free will and the natural order of things. From this perspective, the question of evil and suffering is seen as a problem to be solved through human understanding and the application of scientific and rational inquiry, rather than a problem to be solved through religious or spiritual belief.
Ultimately, the approach and conclusion one may draw will depend on one's own beliefs, perspective and how they interpret the world.
William: Where in that approach is the requirement for lovingkindness, which is part of the POE?
Open AI: In a secular or naturalistic approach to the problem of evil, the concept of "lovingkindness" is not necessarily central to the explanation of the existence of evil and suffering. Instead, the focus is on understanding the underlying causes of evil and suffering through scientific and rational inquiry.
However, the concept of "lovingkindness" can still be relevant in this perspective if one considers it a human virtue or moral value. From this point of view, the problem of evil may be seen as a question of how we can reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with our understanding of what is good and moral, including the idea of "lovingkindness."
Some philosophers, have discussed that the concepts of "good and evil" are not absolute and that they depend on the context and cultural background, from this perspective the problem of evil may be seen as a question of how we can reconcile our understanding of good and evil with our understanding of the world and the way it works, without invoking a deity.
In any case, whether the focus is on understanding the underlying causes of evil and suffering, or on reconciling our understanding of good and evil with the world, the problem of evil remains a question that can be approached from different perspectives and with different priorities.
Open AI: It's understandable that it might be difficult to see how one could approach the problem of evil without invoking the concept of a deity, as the question is often framed in the context of monotheistic religions, which posit the existence of a single, all-powerful and all-knowing deity who is responsible for the creation and governance of the world.
However, it is possible to approach the problem of evil from a secular or naturalistic perspective. One approach is to understand the problem of evil as a question of human understanding, and asking how we can make sense of the evil and suffering that we see in the world without having to resort to the idea of a deity. This can be done through various lens like scientific, psychological, philosophical or other.
Some philosophers and scientists have proposed naturalistic explanations for the existence of evil and suffering, such as the idea that they are simply the result of the laws of physics and chemistry, or that they are the result of human free will and the natural order of things. From this perspective, the question of evil and suffering is seen as a problem to be solved through human understanding and the application of scientific and rational inquiry, rather than a problem to be solved through religious or spiritual belief.
Ultimately, the approach and conclusion one may draw will depend on one's own beliefs, perspective and how they interpret the world.
William: Where in that approach is the requirement for lovingkindness, which is part of the POE?
Open AI: In a secular or naturalistic approach to the problem of evil, the concept of "lovingkindness" is not necessarily central to the explanation of the existence of evil and suffering. Instead, the focus is on understanding the underlying causes of evil and suffering through scientific and rational inquiry.
However, the concept of "lovingkindness" can still be relevant in this perspective if one considers it a human virtue or moral value. From this point of view, the problem of evil may be seen as a question of how we can reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with our understanding of what is good and moral, including the idea of "lovingkindness."
Some philosophers, have discussed that the concepts of "good and evil" are not absolute and that they depend on the context and cultural background, from this perspective the problem of evil may be seen as a question of how we can reconcile our understanding of good and evil with our understanding of the world and the way it works, without invoking a deity.
In any case, whether the focus is on understanding the underlying causes of evil and suffering, or on reconciling our understanding of good and evil with the world, the problem of evil remains a question that can be approached from different perspectives and with different priorities.
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 5242
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1998 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #415So here, looks like you pulled it right from the keister.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 am He is clearly talking to Humans here, but the principle can apply to animals.
So you are pulling these responses right from the keister. Good to know.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 am There could be many reasons, some which are beyond my ability to imagine right now. But here are some I can imagine. So humans are accountable for the suffering they cause even to animals. We are actually accountable because they actually suffer.
Hmmm. You do not know if animals actually feel pain, BUT you know they can learn/grow?AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 am So that animals can in their own way learn from suffering to be peaceful and passive in the world to come.
Following your explanation, it would not make sense for animals to suffer, prior to humans. Why? Based upon your prior explanation, they need to suffer so us humans do not get confused. But now, we get to enjoy more (ad hoc / post hoc) explanation(s). AKA, pulling more stuff straight from the 'ol keister.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 am I don't know. It wouldn't matter either way for the above reasons. Their suffering would balance out and serve a purpose even for the animals. I can only infer that animals really suffered before humans existed. But who knows?
And to answer your other part, about "balancing out", I already addressed this directly above. How in the heck would you assert they learn/grow, when you do not know whether or not they really experience suffering?
The Bible already insinuates we are special. This is no secret.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 am As far as if it would be an oddity, of course. I think it would be such an oddity that we would collectively know humans were special. It would be a conclusion that we would have a very hard time ignoring. We see we suffer, and then look at every other animal and ask, why don't they suffer? It is as if suffering is specially made just for us humans. We must be special animals.
You are missing my point. Animals do not need to suffer. Seeing animals not suffer, would no closer bring me to think YHWH exists. Please pull a better answer out of your keister.
Last edited by POI on Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 5242
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1998 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #416Do you deny paleontology? Dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs, and went extinct well before humans came onto the scene. (http://www.nature.com/articles/news030331-7). So your faith based assertion, that all species were veges, prior to the fall, is wrong.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
AquinasForGod
- Guru
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #417[Replying to POI in post #415]
Define what you mean by this. Do you mean that I use my God given reasoning to philosophize about the world? If so, then sure. It is what we should be doing.AquinasForGod wrote: ?Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:16 pm
There could be many reasons, some which are beyond my ability to imagine right now. But here are some I can imagine. So humans are accountable for the suffering they cause even to animals. We are actually accountable because they actually suffer.
So you are pulling these responses right from the keister. Good to know.
You asked me to take a position and argue for it, thus I am.AquinasForGod wrote: ?Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:16 pm
So that animals can in their own way learn from suffering to be peaceful and passive in the world to come.
Hmmm. You do not know if animals actually feel pain, BUT you know they can learn/grow?
If you mean philosophizing about a worldview, then yes. That is what we should be doing.Following your explanation, it would not make sense for animals to suffer, prior to humans. Why? Based upon your prior explanation, they need to suffer so us humans do not get confused. But now, we get to enjoy more (ad hoc / post hoc) explanation(s). AKA, pulling more stuff straight from the 'ol keister.
I am taking a position and defending it. But you never taught an animal tricks to see they can indeed learn? Is that not evidence they learn, thus grow?And to answer your other part, about "balancing out", I already addressed this directly above. How in the heck would you assert they learn/grow, when you do not know whether or not they really experience suffering?
You cannot possibly know if it is fitting that animals suffer, or if it necessary for the end result God wants.You are missing my point. Animals do not need to suffer. Seeing animals not suffer, would no closer bring me to think YHWH exists. Please pull a better answer out of your keister.
-
TRANSPONDER
- Banned
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 1080 times
- Been thanked: 3981 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #418That all seems to indicate that it's the Big If. IF (Bible) - god exists, then one could use the 'There is an explanation, but we don't know it' argument, which is after all what atheist materialists do with unanswered questions ("There is probably a natural explanation, but we don't know what it is"). The argument about animal suffering, animal consciousness seems some of the same.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:42 pm [Replying to POI in post #415]Define what you mean by this. Do you mean that I use my God given reasoning to philosophize about the world? If so, then sure. It is what we should be doing.AquinasForGod wrote: ?Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:16 pm
There could be many reasons, some which are beyond my ability to imagine right now. But here are some I can imagine. So humans are accountable for the suffering they cause even to animals. We are actually accountable because they actually suffer.
So you are pulling these responses right from the keister. Good to know.
You asked me to take a position and argue for it, thus I am.AquinasForGod wrote: ?Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:16 pm
So that animals can in their own way learn from suffering to be peaceful and passive in the world to come.
Hmmm. You do not know if animals actually feel pain, BUT you know they can learn/grow?
If you mean philosophizing about a worldview, then yes. That is what we should be doing.Following your explanation, it would not make sense for animals to suffer, prior to humans. Why? Based upon your prior explanation, they need to suffer so us humans do not get confused. But now, we get to enjoy more (ad hoc / post hoc) explanation(s). AKA, pulling more stuff straight from the 'ol keister.
I am taking a position and defending it. But you never taught an animal tricks to see they can indeed learn? Is that not evidence they learn, thus grow?And to answer your other part, about "balancing out", I already addressed this directly above. How in the heck would you assert they learn/grow, when you do not know whether or not they really experience suffering?
You cannot possibly know if it is fitting that animals suffer, or if it necessary for the end result God wants.You are missing my point. Animals do not need to suffer. Seeing animals not suffer, would no closer bring me to think YHWH exists. Please pull a better answer out of your keister.
Which is - that materialist science (or natural physical processes) is what we have and explains most questions, including Life, consciousness and morality through biological processes, apart from some questions (origins of life, exactly how consciousness works and whether the rules of logic or mathematics are physical laws or human constructs.
The point being that physical processes without a god (never mind which one) are known and do not have to be proved. It is pointless to apply morality to animal suffering if it is uncaring natural physics (evolution) and one can only consider the question from the position of believing in a god that runs things and intervenes. If one does not, the question is not even relevant.
So it comes down to, yet again, is there any good reason to credit an intervening (never mind moral) god? Because if there isn't, none of the points you made above even apply or are relevant. They are the simple and basic logical error that invalidates all such Theist apologetics
"If there is a god (an intervening one, that is) then we don't have to explain anything; God knows what He is doing".
But if there is no good reason to believe in any such god, such an excuse has no logical or rational merit. And because we know that natural physical laws account for a lot of the way the world works and nobody has validated the god - claim, let alone an intervening one, there is no good reason to even use the "If God exists" argument, because it depends on assuming what is not validated as a starting point for an argument.
In other words, reversal of burden of proof based on Faith (not reason) that a god exist, and is an intervening one, never mind one who cares and is moral or endorses any particular religions.
Thus, Faith (in a god) has never been a good or logical argument, and since even philosophical questions (like suffering and morality) are being better explained by evolutionary science than Philosophy or religion ever could, they turn out to be nothing more than Either gaps for god, which are now all but closed, Or questions or problems which science has yet to fully answer, which is actually the same thing, but one depends on established science and physics (materialism) or upon godfaith. Which validates nothing.
Or to put it another way, the constant stream of questions for Believers 'Explain this; explain that' are irrelevant, logically, and exist only as bias confirmation through 'atheist - stumpers' to give themselves an excuse to cling to their Faith.
It always gives me a wry smile when I see them pull one of the nice little rhetorical ploys out of their bag of lawyer - tricks like "pricing themselves out of the market" which is "If you can't explain this, then God has to be the answer" which is where we came in, pretty much, and is no argument at all, but (if one has godfaith to start with) it sure looks to them like it is.
Sorry to be so long -winded, but it seems that this basic fallacy in the theist mindset is illogical, irrational and invalid at base and seems to invalidate pretty much all of their arguments.
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 5242
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1998 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #419AFG --> "But here are some I can imagine".
I can imagine a lot of stuff too.
Yes, I see that.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:42 pm You asked me to take a position and argue for it, thus I am.
Learn tricks, yes. But stretching it out to 'grow'. You seem to be reaching; quite a bit.... How are they 'growing' exactly? And for what exactly?AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:42 pm I am taking a position and defending it. But you never taught an animal tricks to see they can indeed learn? Is that not evidence they learn, thus grow?
You've missed my point here. If I noticed animals did not suffer, it would not bring me closer to thinking there is a god.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:42 pm You cannot possibly know if it is fitting that animals suffer, or if it necessary for the end result God wants.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
AquinasForGod
- Guru
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
Re: Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?
Post #420[Replying to POI in post #419]
If an animal doesn't know tricks, then learns tricks, he has grown to know tricks, yes? Thus he grew in knowledge.Learn tricks, yes. But stretching it out to 'grow'. You seem to be reaching; quite a bit.... How are they 'growing' exactly? And for what exactly?
