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?'

[alexxcJRO]

To rationally support this, you've got to show that suffering is evil and that the cost to end any evil suffering is not too much.
But you seem to be saying the analogy doesn't work by assuming suffering is evil, which I'm questioning. That's what I need you to rationally support instead of just assert to change my view on the matter.

I have explained it already.
I do not need Evil as a concept. Deep to the core of the arguement lays the concept of suffering.
I only need suffering which is real.
Please address the new argument/analogy as presented.

Marriage is an integral part of existence, but it doesn't exist in Heaven because it's part of the preparation of something else.

But we do not have some of suffering in Heaven we have zero suffering in Heaven.
While we have immense suffering in Hell.
It all points to the logic: of suffering being bad and cannot coincide with a perfect blissful existence.
Humans are being rewarded in Heaven with an blissful existence without any suffering. While in Hell we have not a blissful existence and lots and lots and lots and ...and lots of suffering.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #119]

Is there any 'moral' assessment(s) for which all humans "intrinsically know" (is/are) <good/evil>, without having to also additionally apply trust in the requested specific "god of the Bible"?

x) If so, then wouldn't (needless or unnecessary suffering - which misses the mark or objective), qualify as one of them for assessing as <good vs. evil>? If not, why not?

y) If not, then god has no logical right to hold humans accountable for their action(s). Why? Since we have no "intrinsic ability" to evaluate <good vs. evil>, it would be illogical to punish humans for making an unwanted or incorrect choice, from the Bible god's perspective, such as being told to "trust the Bible god", and for the human to reject the request.

I do think some moral decisions are clearer than others, which we can see by all human cultures agreeing with them in principle (if they apply them differently based on what they believe is fact in reality). This would be things like don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t lie, etc. That doesn’t mean all choices are that clear as life is very complex. You’ve got the burden to show that the creation of animals’ ability to suffer at all is one of those that should be clear.

This complexity doesn’t show God as illogical for holding humans accountable. It’s clear to us that moral choices are complex and our choices end up not working out well sometimes. We should have the humility to see we need help. If we don’t seek that help, we are responsible for that choice.

'Theodicy', in its varying forms in <a), b), and c)>, which also includes 'free will', (is/are) the reason(s) 'evil' is said to be permitted here on earth.

Yes, which is why you first need to establish the creation of animals’ ability to suffer at all as being evil.

Animals, however, do not appear to quality in obtaining/achieving any of these wanted goals. Hence, their suffering is pointless. When a human suffers pointlessly, we humans attempt to aid in reducing or eliminating their pointless suffering. The same goes for animals. Well, animals fearing of, or actually being the recipient of predation, looks to be pointless/unnecessary, as it relates to the objective(s). And since (pointless/unnecessary) suffering in humans would be deemed "bad" for humans, it would logically follow that (pointless/unnecessary) suffering in animals would also be deemed 'bad'.

You’d then still need to rationally rule out other possible options to leave just a, b, c as the only viable reasons to allow animal suffering. Saying it looks pointless isn’t enough.

My argument is not that all suffering is bad, but instead that suffering, <which does not align with or fulfill the Bible god's goal(s)>, is 'bad'.

Okay, but you haven’t shown the creation of animal suffering doesn’t align with God’s goals.

It's your burden to show that there is a feasible world with the goals God has where the fear of predation is unnecessary and evil or you can't say only your 3 options exist.

No, it is your burden to demonstrate why (fear of predation) is necessary to achieve god's goal(s). And you haven't. I have instead shown why it is certainly not necessary at all.

No, that isn’t my burden here. I came into this thread to analyze a claim you are supporting. The burden is on the one making the claim. It is my personal burden to support my belief there if I’m not going to be an agnostic. If you can’t support your claim and say, okay, agnosticism makes the most sense then and I wanted to disagree with that, I would then have the burden to support my claim. But it’s not my burden to prove your claim wrong; it’s your burden to prove your claim is right.

You seem to be saying human suffering can conceivably be met by theodicy (a, b, c), but not non-human animal suffering, right? I'm not saying the same move works for non-human animals; I'm saying that it's unnecessary because suffering in itself has not been shown to be evil. That's my answer.

This answer does not address my repeated question above in bold red.

I’ll try to say it a different way, then. Can animals experience theodicy (as defined by your a, b, c)? No, but that’s irrelevant to our discussion as you haven’t established the need for a theodicy for animal suffering since you haven’t shown the creation of animal suffering to be evil.

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #121]

To rationally support this, you've got to show that suffering is evil and that the cost to end any evil suffering is not too much.
But you seem to be saying the analogy doesn't work by assuming suffering is evil, which I'm questioning. That's what I need you to rationally support instead of just assert to change my view on the matter.

I have explained it already.
I do not need Evil as a concept. Deep to the core of the arguement lays the concept of suffering.
I only need suffering which is real.
Please address the new argument/analogy as presented.

If it’s not evil, then why is it a problem?

Marriage is an integral part of existence, but it doesn't exist in Heaven because it's part of the preparation of something else.

But we do not have some of suffering in Heaven we have zero suffering in Heaven.
While we have immense suffering in Hell.
It all points to the logic: of suffering being bad and cannot coincide with a perfect blissful existence.
Humans are being rewarded in Heaven with an blissful existence without any suffering. While in Hell we have not a blissful existence and lots and lots and lots and ...and lots of suffering.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the marriage counter example to your previous principle that integral parts of our current existence would need to remain in heaven.

But on this point, if there is suffering in hell (and annihilationism isn’t true), it would be the result of free will and something God wanted humans to avoid.

[alexxcJRO]

If it’s not evil, then why is it a problem?

I bet if you were in the place of my close relative it would be obvious as day is from night.
Its logic 101.
There is a contradiction between a supposed omni God that is super loving, caring, personal yet we see he does not care at all for his created creatures for they suffer immensely yet he does not bother to help. It does not bother to help with their huge problem.

Again:
It is like this:
I am apparently an orphan but someone tells me I supposedly have a super loving, caring parent(father). I write to him to help me with an egregious problem I have. I write to him years upon years. Not only I do not receive any help he does not even bother to reply.
Is it fair for me to conclude: Either he does not exist or he does not care if he exists. And the claims of me having a super duper loving, caring parent(father) are unsubstantiated.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the marriage counter example to your previous principle that integral parts of our current existence would need to remain in heaven.
But on this point, if there is suffering in hell (and annihilationism isn’t true), it would be the result of free will and something God wanted humans to avoid.

Q: But why would omni-God eliminate suffering from Heaven(zero) and not in Hell(a immense level of suffering-Googol style)?

It is omni-God that eliminates suffering. The phenomenon "suffering" does not manifest in Heaven because of omni God. But it manifests greatly in Hell. Much greater then on Earth because of omni-God.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #86]

The Ai you used didn't even understand the analogy of pre-existence. It thinks I was being literal when I made it clear that it is an analogy. I then explain exactly what it means. So, try starting there and see if you understand it better than Ai did.

9. The Divine Foreknowledge of Choices:

Julian: Thomas, considering God's omniscience, how does His foreknowledge of all events relate to our suffering? Does this not make Him responsible for the hardships we endure?

Aquinas: Julian, this is a profound inquiry. Let us consider a hypothetical scenario to understand this better. Imagine, prior to our existence, God presents us with a choice. He reveals the potential experiences and challenges of life, including suffering, along with the possibility of eternal bliss.

Julian: A choice before existence? How is that feasible?

Aquinas: It's a hypothetical construct to illustrate divine foreknowledge. In this scenario, God discloses the full spectrum of life's potential – both its hardships and its rewards – and asks whether we would choose to be born, fully aware of the risks and opportunities.

Julian: And based on this, God decides whether to create us?

Aquinas: Precisely. God, in His omniscience, knows our response to this hypothetical choice. If He foresees that we would choose non-existence, He refrains from creating us. Conversely, if He foresees our choice to embrace life with its inherent challenges, He proceeds with our creation.

Julian: So, our existence is contingent on a choice we would have made, had we been able to make it?

Aquinas: Yes, Julian. And God, in His wisdom, orchestrates the circumstances of our lives, aligning them with opportunities that maximize our potential for moral and spiritual growth, even through suffering.

Julian: This concept suggests our suffering is not random but part of a calculated plan based on our hypothetical consent?

Aquinas: It does, Julian. Though we may not consciously recall making this choice, it aligns with God's foreknowledge of our preferences and inclinations. This view helps us to see our earthly trials as part of a path towards greater spiritual maturity and an opportunity to achieve maximal goodness.

Julian: It’s a compelling notion, Thomas, though not easy to accept.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

Here is one of your direct quotes from the given link:

"animals undergo a form of development that prepares them for an existence beyond their earthly life."

Are you pulling stuff out of your keister?

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans. While animals are part of a creation described as awaiting liberation (Romans 8) and feature in visions of a restored, peaceful future kingdom, they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it.

Theology extends beyond the bible. Philosophy is not dependent upon the bible. I am Catholic, not a Bible-only believer.

[POI]

I do think some moral decisions are clearer than others,

Still addressing (P1)...

This did not really answer my question. Allow me to re-phrase it. (Is/are) there any 'moral assessments' in which we humans all know are intrinsically "good" or "evil"? You mentioned murder, theft, etc...? According to the Christian worldview, are any of these said action(s) intrinsically known to be 'evil'? Or, is all "moral" assessments instead subjective?

You’d then still need to rationally rule out other possible options to leave just a, b, c as the only viable reasons to allow animal suffering.

You tried to give another option. And in that given option, you would have needed to demonstrate why animals could not all just be plant-eaters, or, even yet, have to ever eat anything at all? I do not recall you addressing these observation(s). Or, do you have any other viable option(s) to add to the table?

Okay, but you haven’t shown the creation of animal suffering doesn’t align with God’s goals.

The same can be said for the topic you have repeatedly brought up --> 'marriage.' Do we, as humans, have any logical viability to assess as to (whether or not) an observed marriage fulfills god's plan or goal(s)?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?

[POI]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

Here is one of your direct quotes from the given link:

"animals undergo a form of development that prepares them for an existence beyond their earthly life."

Are you pulling stuff out of your keister?

The Bible does not explicitly teach that animals undergo "developmental preparation" for an existence beyond earthly life, as they are generally presented as lacking the immortal soul and capacity for redemption attributed to humans. While animals are part of a creation described as awaiting liberation (Romans 8) and feature in visions of a restored, peaceful future kingdom, they are not portrayed as active participants in preparing for it.

Theology extends beyond the bible. Philosophy is not dependent upon the bible. I am Catholic, not a Bible-only believer.

The least you could do is respond to what I stated. Here, I highlighted the part in red, (for which you skipped).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #124]

If I said “starting off one’s post with ‘I bet’” is a problem, you’d probably want to know why it qualifies as a problem before accepting any conclusions I made off of it being a problem, right? You would disagree with my claim and you wouldn’t accept an answer of “it’s obvious” as an adequate or rational response. So, until you can show why the creation of beings who suffer at all is a problem, you’ve got no argument for me to respond to.

If hell is the eternal conscious torment view, then I agree with you that there is lots of suffering in hell at the bequest of God, but I don’t think the Bible teaches that view. If hell is annihilation, then suffering doesn’t exist as those beings would cease to exist and non-existent things can’t suffer. If hell is a state of existence, then I believe all suffering is self-inflicted and possibly inflicted by people on each other of their own will.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #127]

This did not really answer my question. Allow me to re-phrase it. (Is/are) there any 'moral assessments' in which we humans all know are intrinsically "good" or "evil"? You mentioned murder, theft, etc...? According to the Christian worldview, are any of these said action(s) intrinsically known to be 'evil'? Or, is all "moral" assessments instead subjective?

Let me rephrase my response.

Yes. Humans intrinsically know that murder is evil, for instance.

You then seemed to argue that wouldn’t this mean that the creation of animal suffering qualifies as something we would intrinsically know if good or evil (your “x)”). That doesn’t logically follow. The existence of some very clear moral assessments doesn’t mean all (or this specific one) is also clear.

You then seemed to argue that if it doesn’t qualify, then God would have no right to hold humans accountable for getting that wrong and for incorrectly choosing to not trust the Bible god. If entrance into heaven were about getting all the moral issues right, sure, but that’s not what the Bible says. You enter through realizing that you don’t get them all right and turning to God and out of that heavenly existence, you start to improve on getting the moral issues correct. So, you are held accountable for not trusting God to do something you know you can’t do.

You’d then still need to rationally rule out other possible options to leave just a, b, c as the only viable reasons to allow animal suffering.

You tried to give another option. And in that given option, you would have needed to demonstrate why animals could not all just be plant-eaters, or, even yet, have to ever eat anything at all? I do not recall you addressing these observation(s). Or, do you have any other viable option(s) to add to the table?

This is shifting your burden. I don’t have to provide and support a (d), you have to show it can only be a, b, c or if a d, e, f are present, why those fail.

But this is only after establishing that the creation of beings who suffer is evil in the first place.

Okay, but you haven’t shown the creation of animal suffering doesn’t align with God’s goals.

The same can be said for the topic you have repeatedly brought up --> 'marriage.' Do we, as humans, have any logical viability to assess as to (whether or not) an observed marriage fulfills god's plan or goal(s)?

You have been assuming the Bible’s teachings to be true in order to show an inconsistency or falsehood. Are you saying you don’t think the Bible teaches the importance of marriage in society now and the results of that (particularly, more humans) populating a loving community called heaven, which is at least one of God’s ultimate goals?

Still to come...

(1) What is god's version of justice? (Note: Inquiring minds really want to know).
(2) Does 'free will' exist under the Christian worldview, and does Jesus present coercion -- (according to Mk 16:15-16, Matt 28:41, John 3:18, Rev 20:15)? (Note: Your will is likely not free, under the Christian world view, as coercion is presented).
(3) Is belief even a choice at all, and if so, does Jesus present (a choice) or a (free choice)? (Note: If belief is really a choice, then I can freely choose to believe in the Easter Bunny without convincing presented evidence).
(4) Is there an ‘omni’ problem? (Note: Defer to William's argument?.?.?)
(5) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write, on their own accord alone (Note: I doubt you can locate one or some)?
(6) Had Constantine and Theodosius not of propelled Christianity, or, had "Rome" ultimately backed another 'religion', Christianity would likely have existed as yet another non dominant, minority religion -- similar in status to Mithraism or other mystery cults of the era. (Note: this observation is not to argue for why Christianity is or isn't true, but to instead provide pushback against your claim).
(7) Since humans are deemed fallible, and Jesus was literate, and further, gaining actual insight and context is paramount -- as it relates to <salvation vs. not>, then why didn't Jesus just (write and preserve) the actual message(s) himself? (Note: Is it because he could not have done a better job conveying truth, versus the actual deemed fallible human authors)?
(8) How do we KNOW Genesis is not to be taken somewhat literally, in its many claims? (Note: Many fall away from the religion due to a literal interpretation of Genesis which will ultimately lead to their 'damnation'. Further, stop lights and stop signs -- most aren't running them, warning labels - most understand, non-fictional writings -- most aren't arguing they are metaphorical, etc. And yet, the same understanding is not even achieved with the concept of 'hell'- which is arguably a massive topic under this worldview).
(9) Is it logically possible for an ("omni") God to clearly communicate to "free will" agents — such that most or all understand the message correctly? (Note: If so, why is not the same level of universal understanding obtained about the concept of 'hell', versus the aforementioned topics above --in (8) -- and other?)
(10) The concept of Heaven does not look to logically work, from the Biblical view. Why? If you continue to have free will in Heaven, you are still capable of sin. And yet, Heaven is a sinless place. Just because you now have full revelation of God does not then guarantee one to then become sinless. Further, some atheists admit that if they received revelation from god, as you state will happen in Heaven, then such atheists would then follow/worship/etc. Some atheists admit that the problem of "divine hiddenness" is the reason they do not believe. And yet, according to the Bible, belief is a prerequisite requirement for salvation. It is a catch-22.
(11) Why are the expressed topics of (Genesis and Hell) not met with "maximal understanding"? Meaning, why is (whether or not) Genesis is <literal or not> 'maximally understood', just like it is so with many other topics in the Bible and also outside the Bible? Further, why is "maximal understanding" not met with (whether or not) Hell means <eternal conscious torture or not>, like instead 'maximal understanding' is expressed with many other laws, and their expressed punishment(s)?