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?'

[POI]

if we set that construct aside and just look at what's actually presented - a creator, yes, but one with specific portrayed characteristics, priorities, and limits - then what are we left with?

We would be left with the observance of a "fallible" god and his decided actions.

What can we actually say about that entity?.

A theist may argue that 'without god, there can be no objective morals.' But this may <pre-assume> that this god is an 'omni' god? If instead a fumbling god exists, or is just short of 'omni' status, then this less-than god's own 'moral compass' would not necessarily align with objective morality, if there is even such a thing as TRUE objective morals to begin with?.?.?.? But like I told The Tanager, I don't know that there exists true objective economics either. And yet, I do not quite see the same pushback when we witness and judge the 'economic blunder' of others. It seems, that often times, when the interlocutor asks, "(what is your standard for saying that?)", is often times (clue number 1) that they too agree that the observed 'short-coming' may actually be on the right track. But I digress here...

(Possible sidebar)...

Here's how I see it. If there was absolute knowledge of the Bible god's existence, would I follow or reject him? And in turn, would my reason(s) for following him matter?

Case/point, if I followed out of sheer fear, due to an implied ultimatum or coercion -- (as stated in Mark 16:15-16), then maybe the Bible god would not see my attempt at worship genuine, and maybe not accept me for other reason(s) not disclosed at the end of Mark 16? But I would have to wonder...? Why would such a god logically think that anyone could prioritize a relationship with him, without giving back? Meaning, the relationship is a one-way street. The human seeks him, and he remains hidden.

Because - the question asked is "Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores."

That's the conversation I'm interested in

Maybe because the Bible god is a "sadistic voyeur"?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #241]

Hmmm - interestingly while you wrote and posted that, I wrote and posted these in the CCA thread.

Post # 191

Post #192

I will of course answer your post above - but for now these may (or may not) give you some clarity on where I am coming from.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #241]

We would be left with the observance of a "fallible" god and his decided actions.

Agreed.

A theist may argue that 'without god, there can be no objective morals.' But this may <pre-assume> that this god is an 'omni' god? If instead a fumbling god exists, or is just short of 'omni' status, then this less-than god's own 'moral compass' would not necessarily align with objective morality, if there is even such a thing as TRUE objective morals to begin with?.?.?.?

The "objective morality" is observed in the claimed actions of the God and in the observed actions of The Humanities. However, like you, I am not 100% clear on the claim of objective morality actually existing because I have yet to see it defined. Thus I am open but undecided if it is a TRUE thing or not or whether such has any bearing on the subject being discussed...

What does appear to be aligned (when dissected) is individual human morality and the I AM THAT I AM in answer to the question Moses asked of the entity...

Here's how I see it. If there was absolute knowledge of the Bible god's existence, would I follow or reject him? And in turn, would my reason(s) for following him matter?

Case/point, if I followed out of sheer fear, due to an implied ultimatum or coercion -- (as stated in Mark 16:15-16), then maybe the Bible god would not see my attempt at worship genuine, and maybe not accept me for other reason(s) not disclosed at the end of Mark 16? But I would have to wonder...? Why would such a god logically think that anyone could prioritize a relationship with him, without giving back? Meaning, the relationship is a one-way street. The human seeks him, and he remains hidden.

Are those two separate approaches?

Perhaps if one approaches with fear (quite appropriate if the God is not omni) then where might that fear lead? More fear? Revelation?

Since the God is portrayed as being personal - why would we expect only a one-way street? Can such even be truthfully referred to as "relationship"?

Maybe because the Bible god is a "sadistic voyeur"?

That is an understandable but incomplete conclusion.

What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us? That life on earth cannot exist if creature didn't prey on creature and also that changes could not happen if caring didn't factor into the equation.

If we are to find answer to what is the creator by fully observing what is the creation, are we simply left with the declaration "the creator is a sadistic voyeur?

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #243]

FYI, I'll be completely off the grid for a little over a week. I'll address when I get back. Thnx.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #205]

You saying your interpretation of things being right is clear doesn’t give me anything of substance to respond to.

Then you respond to my arguments for specific, metaphorical interpretations by ignoring everything I say, repeat those verses and critiques as though I didn’t respond to them, and then claim those are my pretend reasons, while my real reasons are that I metaphorize negative things in the Bible and literalize the good parts is more empty rhetoric that gives me nothing of substance to respond to.

The master of ignoring things whines. How rich.
If you wanna leave the discussion/debate leave. Do not have to invent "doesn’t give me anything of substance".


Your interpretations do not make sense considering what is there in the text.

[William]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #245]

I don't understand what your problem is with The Tanager...

[POI]

Perhaps if one approaches with fear (quite appropriate if the God is not omni) then where might that fear lead? More fear? Revelation?

Well, since this invisible god remains silent, who knows? All we have are the ancient words of the Bible, coupled with the testimonials of others? And since an 'educated bases' can be made for altering positions, when reading the Bible, and the Bible god cares not to clear up such earnest confusion, again, "shoulder shrugs"...

Since the God is portrayed as being personal - why would we expect only a one-way street? Can such even be truthfully referred to as "relationship"?

What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us? That life on earth cannot exist if creature didn't prey on creature and also that changes could not happen if caring didn't factor into the equation.

This takes us right back to the unanswered question in which scholarship perpetually debates. Did predation exist prior to "the fall"? Too bad we cannot simply just ask "the source." Again, with the whole 'divine hiddenness' topic...

If we are to find answer to what is the creator by fully observing what is the creation, are we simply left with the declaration "the creator is a sadistic voyeur?

Theology has given 'reason(s)' as for why suffering must exist for humans. Even if all reason(s) were satisfied, (theists or god) would still need to give the reason(s) as to why animal predation must take place.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #247]

Well, since this invisible god remains silent, who knows?

Perhaps those who understand that the GOD is neither invisible or silent?

All we have are the ancient words of the Bible, coupled with the testimonials of others?

This is indeed true re those on the outside looking in...

And since an 'educated bases' can be made for altering positions, when reading the Bible, and the Bible god cares not to clear up such earnest confusion, again, "shoulder shrugs"...

Is that really where the trail ends? I am unconvinced. I have been for most of my life. That is because the part I have to play requires some of the onus is on me.

Is your thumbs up a sign that we agree here? Yet do we? I have my ways of ensuring that the relationship is two-way. It works for me. Sceptics I have shared those ways with typical critique my sharing of that along the lines that "is it a nice thing if one wants a way of developing deep introspection so if you think you are communicating with you god, have at it." Religious folk tend to point and tell me I have a deceiving spirit. Either way I am up against it with those on the outside looking in.
That in itself is not a complaint mind you. Just observing and reporting common reaction.

What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us? That life on earth cannot exist if creature didn't prey on creature and also that changes could not happen if caring didn't factor into the equation.

This takes us right back to the unanswered question in which scholarship perpetually debates. Did predation exist prior to "the fall"? Too bad we cannot simply just ask "the source." Again, with the whole 'divine hiddenness' topic...

That is why I asked "What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us?" Do we need our answer in words from an invisible source or can we find the answer in nature itself?

If we are to find answer to what is the creator by fully observing what is the creation, are we simply left with the declaration "the creator is a sadistic voyeur?

Theology has given 'reason(s)' as for why suffering must exist for humans. Even if all reason(s) were satisfied, (theists or god) would still need to give the reason(s) as to why animal predation must take place.

So do we declare in the meantime that ""the creator is a sadistic voyeur"?

[POI]

Perhaps those who understand that the GOD is neither invisible or silent?

Then where is he exactly and what exactly is he actually saying, and how can I verify this?

Is that really where the trail ends? I am unconvinced. I have been for most of my life. That is because the part I have to play requires some of the onus is on me.

Okay?

Is your thumbs up a sign that we agree here? Yet do we? I have my ways of ensuring that the relationship is two-way. It works for me. Sceptics I have shared those ways with typical critique my sharing of that along the lines that "is it a nice thing if one wants a way of developing deep introspection so if you think you are communicating with you god, have at it." Religious folk tend to point and tell me I have a deceiving spirit. Either way I am up against it with those on the outside looking in.
That in itself is not a complaint mind you. Just observing and reporting common reaction.

My "thumbs up" is placed here if you agree with me that a relationship with the Bible god is a one-way street for me.

That is why I asked "What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us?" Do we need our answer in words from an invisible source or can we find the answer in nature itself?

So far, 'science' looks to be the only viable tool for revealing how 'nature' works.

So do we declare in the meantime that ""the creator is a sadistic voyeur"?

Nah. For the Christian crowd, let's instead assume that the intervening creator of everything, who can create anything he so chooses, is a loving god and has his reason(s) for creating animal predation, and chooses not to tell anyone, even though he is said to communicate with some as well. For you, who knows? Maybe he is instead a fumbling buffoon, who states, 'look what I did'?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #249]

Then where is he exactly and what exactly is he actually saying, and how can I verify this?

Indeed This directly relates to my "those outside looking in" comment. It also directly relates to the YAWN we were discussing before you had you break off the grid.

Is that really where the trail ends? I am unconvinced. I have been for most of my life. That is because the part I have to play requires some of the onus is on me.

Okay?

Therefore, one has to accept some responsibility in order to shift ones position from being outside trying unsuccessfully to see inside.

My "thumbs up" is placed here if you agree with me that a relationship with the Bible god is a one-way street for me.

There is no doubt about that. You are saying "yep that is my position and I like it" (or something along those lines,) right?

That is why I asked "What is nature (aka the creation) revealing to us?" Do we need our answer in words from an invisible source or can we find the answer in nature itself?

So far, 'science' looks to be the only viable tool for revealing how 'nature' works.

I agree. Science is also not claiming that we do or do not exist within a created thing right? If you agree, then where does that place us in relation to the question?
My answer for myself is that I have to include what science does show as part of the ongoing investigation and - for me - relationship I have (or think I have) with "The Creator."

That is an extra step which science itself (or at least natural science) cannot/does not facilitate on my behalf, right?

So do we declare in the meantime that ""the creator is a sadistic voyeur"?

Nah. For the Christian crowd, let's instead assume that the intervening creator of everything, who can create anything he so chooses, is a loving god and has his reason(s) for creating animal predation, and chooses not to tell anyone, even though he is said to communicate with some as well. For you, who knows? Maybe he is instead a fumbling buffoon, who states, 'look what I did'?

Which in turn loops back to "onus" Right?