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]

And I've responded that a vague 'surely god could figure a way out, so prove otherwise' isn't enough and is actually shifting the burden. You need to show why a specific alternative that still gets the things Christians say God is after is possible.

1) I stated that animal suffering appears (random/un-purposeful/undirected). This complies with nature or a -- (non-directed cause), as opposed to a purposeful reason -- (directed cause).

2) I also stated prior, that the theist can argue for why humans suffer. But none of these expressed reason(s) appear to apply to animals. Therefore, why do animals actually suffer? Can you provide the Biblical reason(s)?

3) (Unanswered) - A parasite slowly feasts on a living host/animal until it dies a slow and agonizing death, (out in the wild), while no one with sentient abilities ever witnessing this action. What is the point? If the victim/host's fate is only a finite death, then why did it need to suffer by way of being slowing eaten from the inside? My position is that nature demonstrates that a mindless world exists, as there is no apparent "purpose" or "reason" for this action to take place -- (from a theological perspective) -- since the victim dies, and that's it. It is instead just nature. The theist must attempt to "justify" why this particular animal's suffering was absolutely necessary, while appealing to the likes of the Christian Bible god? -- (The point here being, that countless sentient agents appear to suffer without any human knowledge. Nor does any of these victims appear to receive any (redemption/restoration) in spite of confirmed experienced suffering. This appears gratuitous. Why would the Bible god allow for this anyways?)

The purpose of God creating is not for His knowledge’s sake, but for the sake of what is created?

Under the observed world, countless sentient agents experience suffering without the possibility of (redemption/restoration)? This appears gratuitous and contradictory, when compared to the Bible story. An "all-loving" god is watching countless sentient agents (live/suffer/die), only to die and that's it? This appears gratuitous and illogical -- unless you care to (omit or redefine) the definition of "all-loving", and instead replace it with the term 'sadistic voyeur' or something more be-fitting?

Yes.

Great. I'll mention another one below.

In the meantime, the theist has his/her hands full by trying to (explain/justify) why countless animals HAVE to suffer, even before "the fall", under the Christian worldview?.?.?.? An easy fix would be if all animals either did not need to eat at all, or, if all animals were plant eaters only. Designing a system where tearing apart another animal is required, every single time one is merely hungry, which is daily, seems quite gratuitous, even if animal suffering was demonstrated to be required somehow, which you haven't demonstrated BTW.

A company offers you a job with requirements to accepting the position (such as a certain salary, certain hours, etc.) You have the choice to accept or to look elsewhere for work. Your choice will have consequences either way. That's not coercion. Why is this any different?

<Your> given example is not coercion. Your given example is expressing how all presented offers have (a consequence), regardless of what decision one makes. Alternatively, an example of actual coercion is the one I gave from Mark 16.

Coercion - "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".

Further, speaking of illogical, belief is not even a choice. And yet, the Biblical author of Mark is under the impression that belief IS a choice? Alternatively, if the author of Mark is aware that belief is not a choice, then why apply such an (eternal punishment) to a human who has no choice in reality? Either way one slices it, the theist has quite a bit of 'explaining' to do. It's just another one to throw into the 'Christian apologetics' bucket.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #41]

1)I stated that animal suffering appears (random/un-purposeful/undirected). This complies with nature or a -- (non-directed cause), as opposed to a purposeful reason -- (directed cause).

Yes, but that it appears so isn't enough. You have the burden to show it is (1) evil and (2) unneccesary. Instead you are offering "it appears to be those things" and then shifting the burden.

2)I also stated prior, that the theist can argue for why humans suffer. But none of these expressed reason(s) appear to apply to animals. Therefore, why do animals actually suffer? Can you provide the Biblical reason(s)?

The Bible doesn't answer this question directly. I shared why I think animals suffer already.

3)(Unanswered) - A parasite slowly feasts on a living host/animal until it dies a slow and agonizing death, (out in the wild), while no one with sentient abilities ever witnessing this action. What is the point? If the victim/host's fate is only a finite death, then why did it need to suffer by way of being slowing eaten from the inside? My position is that nature demonstrates that a mindless world exists, as there is no apparent "purpose" or "reason" for this action to take place -- (from a theological perspective) -- since the victim dies, and that's it. It is instead just nature. The theist must attempt to "justify" why this particular animal's suffering was absolutely necessary, while appealing to the likes of the Christian Bible god? -- (The point here being, that countless sentient agents appear to suffer without any human knowledge. Nor does any of these victims appear to receive any (redemption/restoration) in spite of confirmed experienced suffering. This appears gratuitous. Why would the Bible god allow for this anyways?)

I have addressed this because this is simply a specific example of what you've already talked about and I've addressed.

A company offers you a job with requirements to accepting the position (such as a certain salary, certain hours, etc.) You have the choice to accept or to look elsewhere for work. Your choice will have consequences either way. That's not coercion. Why is this any different?

<Your> given example is not coercion. Your given example is expressing how all presented offers have (a consequence), regardless of what decision one makes. Alternatively, an example of actual coercion is the one I gave from Mark 16.

Coercion - "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".

You didn't show why this is an example of actual coercion; you are simply saying it is. Show it.

Jesus appears to his disciples and tells them to preach the good news he brought to the world (v. 15). Then he makes a statement to his disciples about how those who believe their presented offer will experience one consequence and those who don't trust in their presented offer will experience a different consequence (v. 16). Verse 16 is not part of the method in presenting the message; it's not telling his disciples to use a scare tactic.

Further, speaking of illogical, belief is not even a choice. And yet, the Biblical author of Mark is under the impression that belief IS a choice? Alternatively, if the author of Mark is aware that belief is not a choice, then why apply such an (eternal punishment) to a human who has no choice in reality? Either way one slices it, the theist has quite a bit of 'explaining' to do. It's just another one to throw into the 'Christian apologetics' bucket.

No, you must first explain why your claim that belief is not a choice is true instead of just asserting it and then shifting the burden.

[POI]

Yes, but that it appears so isn't enough. You have the burden to show it is (1) evil and (2) unneccesary. Instead you are offering "it appears to be those things" and then shifting the burden.

I'm not shifting the burden. We both agree that animal suffering is an actual thing, and now I'm asking why animals must suffer (alongside humans)? You also stated animals suffered prior to 'the fall'? What IS the point of their suffering, if they (will not or cannot) later be redeemed, (and/or), lack ability for "theodicy"?

So far, all you have offered is that we live in a (finite world with limited resources). But since we agree that a god can create any environment he so chooses, we must ask why animals MUST also reside in a space with limited resources for them, where some animals have to also necessarily tear other's flesh just for daily survival? I do not recall you ever answering why we must reside in such an environment? Couldn't god accomplish his punishment upon humans without also involving animal suffering too? If not, why not?

Again, if god can do all things, then god could punish humans without punishing animals too. Until you answer the unanswered, regarding 1) no apparent later redemption for animals, and 2) "theodicy', I see no viable reason(s) as to why the animal kingdom must also suffer? Therefore, it seems unnecessary for them to suffer?

This is why my current position is that animal suffering appears unnecessary? And again, I'm willing to be corrected. And since we agree suffering is 'bad', and so does the Bible, (as suffering will apparently be no more in "Heaven'), why does the animal kingdom experience suffering at all, ever?

As it stands, an analogous situation would be if mom told you not to take a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner. You later take a cookie prior to dinner. Mom finds out. And not only does she punish you, but she kicks the family dog too. This is why I asked prior, and I do not recall getting an answer, regarding what does the word 'justice' actually mean to the Bible god?

The Bible doesn't answer this question directly.

Sorry, but I see this as a 'cop out' answer. If the Bible does not tell us something specific, can't Christians still often times gather some kind of conclusion anyways? For example, the Bible also does not list every kind or type of 'sin'. And yet, Christians seem to have no problem labeling what is and is not a 'sin' regardless. Hence, I'll ask again.

Why do animals actually suffer? If you simply say, 'I don't know,' then we can add this into the 'bucket' of actions a deemed "all-loving" god does -- which appears to make no logical sense.

You didn't show why this is an example of actual coercion; you are simply saying it is. Show it.

I did show it. You just do not like it. Not only did I give the verse, but I then gave the definition of coercion as well. Any layman can fill in the logical blanks. What more do you actually need? Coercion is the act of persuasion to do something under duress. Mark 16:15-16 provides such duress. (i.e.) If you are presented with the option of belief and baptism, and you don't believe and/or decline the unsolicited offer, you will alternatively be condemned (and/or) burn in hell forever. The only way to escape this (believe or burn) offer is to avoid ever being offered, if that is even possible.

it's not telling his disciples to use a scare tactic.

Then I guess 'hell' is kept a secret? Nope. Even Jesus preaches it himself:

"41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

************************************

More notables about the coercion, which I trust we agree is not part of any type of "free will"....

John 3 -- "18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Or here: Revelation 20 -- "15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

No, you must first explain why your claim that belief is not a choice is true instead of just asserting it and then shifting the burden.

If someone held a loaded gun to your head and told you to truly believe you could fly if they pushed you off of the 10-story building you were on, could you "will" yourself to believe you could, even for a second? And answer is <no>. This means that even under extreme duress, you cannot "will" a wanted or necessary belief to avoid harm. And yet, Mark 16, John 3, and Revelation 20 are under the assumption that belief, under duress, is a free choice. This is objectively incorrect. And since the Bible is objectively incorrect, the Bible is objectively wrong. And therefore, it does not merit consideration regardless.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #43]

I'm going to break this down step by step as I see it because I think discussing multiple points at the same time is causing some of the confusion between us.

I'm not shifting the burden. We both agree that animal suffering is an actual thing, and now I'm asking why animals must suffer (alongside humans)?

I agree suffering (including animal suffering) is a thing, but I don't think it is an inherently evil thing. Should we try to limit suffering (including animal suffering)? Yes. But that alone doesn't mean it is evil. To make the move you are seemingly advocating for here (from agnosticism to a rejection of the Christian God because of this issue), you first must carry the burden of showing animal suffering is evil. Why is it evil? Why is an existence that involves decay and suffering a bad thing in and of itself?

[POI]

Why is an existence that involves decay and suffering a bad thing in and of itself?

Gen 1:

"29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."

A) Because suffering, by way of predation, was not what the Bible god intended. Predation was a result of human sin. Otherwise, that's how he would have initially made things. Predation was our punishment. So why the heck do animals have to suffer too? See below...

B) Because suffering and decay is not allowed in Heaven. Otherwise, it would be deemed a 'good' thing. The Bible teaches that suffering, pain, death, and sorrow will cease to exist in the eternal state of heaven, as described in (Revelation 21:4), because it's a perfected place where God dwells, free from sin and its consequences (Romans 6:23), with believers receiving new bodies and experiencing unending joy in God's presence.

I agree suffering (including animal suffering) is a thing, but I don't think it is an inherently evil thing.

1) Why do animals have to suffer alongside humans, especially if animals are incapable of rebellion against god, and/or incapable of faith, and/or are incapable of 'theodicy'?
2) Could the Christian god have accomplished the task of punishing humans without also involving animals? If not, why not? If so, why didn't he?
3) What is god's version of 'justice'?

**************************************

Don't forget the rest of my response from post 43

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #45]

Why is an existence that involves decay and suffering a bad thing in and of itself?

Gen 1:

"29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."

A) Because suffering, by way of predation, was not what the Bible god intended. Predation was a result of human sin. Otherwise, that's how he would have initially made things. Predation was our punishment. So why the heck do animals have to suffer too?

This passage says plants are given as food for all, it doesn't say it's the only food for all and that no predation is allowed. It's clear that humans weren't to eat animals because they are told they can start eating animals after the flood (long after the fall) in Genesis 9, but it doesn't say there that animals can now start eating each other, so we can't say predation wasn't already present between non-human animals.

B) Because suffering and decay is not allowed in Heaven. Otherwise, it would be deemed a 'good' thing. The Bible teaches that suffering, pain, death, and sorrow will cease to exist in the eternal state of heaven, as described in (Revelation 21:4), because it's a perfected place where God dwells, free from sin and its consequences (Romans 6:23), with believers receiving new bodies and experiencing unending joy in God's presence.

Getting married (which is deemed a good thing in the Bible) is also not present in heaven, so that logic fails. Not all things that go away go away because they were evil.

Romans 6:23 doesn't say that animal suffering was the consequence of sin, it is comparing eternal life and death for humans.

I agree suffering (including animal suffering) is a thing, but I don't think it is an inherently evil thing.

1) Why do animals have to suffer alongside humans, especially if animals are incapable of rebellion against god, and/or incapable of faith, and/or are incapable of 'theodicy'?

Because that is a corollary of this type of environment which has many goods. Why is that corollary evil?

2) Could the Christian god have accomplished the task of punishing humans without also involving animals? If not, why not? If so, why didn't he?

God's "punishment" of humans didn't include the initiation of animal suffering. Why is animal suffering evil?

3) What is god's version of 'justice'?

With animals, God gives them life, if for a limited time. Yes, there is suffering, but there are also many good elements for animals as well as good elements animals bring to others. Decay and suffering doesn't eclipse that.

Don't forget the rest of my response from post 43

We will get there, but first you are trying to show that animal suffering is evil and your claim requires you to do so, so I'm allowing you time to do that.

[POI]

This passage says plants are given as food for all, it doesn't say it's the only food for all and that no predation is allowed. It's clear that humans weren't to eat animals because they are told they can start eating animals after the flood (long after the fall) in Genesis 9, but it doesn't say there that animals can now start eating each other, so we can't say predation wasn't already present between non-human animals.

I'd say the Bible is unclear, undetailed, and non-specific about some precarious topics -- (see post 43, where I also mention 'sin'). This topic looks to also be one of them, as evidence by the fact that you cannot (say one way or another), as to the conclusion of 'pre-fall' animal predation. Using common sense, being that the Bible lacks specific detail in some of these precarious 'moral' topics for Christians, is the Christian able to discern a conclusion, using one's own 'god-given' common sense, (while reading the Bible), as to (whether or not) animal predation was allowed <prior to "the fall">?

Because that is a corollary of this type of environment which has many goods.

See above.

What I'm asking is why would a deemed 'all-loving' god create sentient agents, which will endure vast amounts of suffering, (which also includes being slowly eaten alive), if they do not possess the ability to apply a) rebellion against god, and/or are b) incapable of faith, and/or are c) incapable of 'theodicy'?

God's "punishment" of humans didn't include the initiation of animal suffering.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You admitted above that the Bible is unclear about whether or not animal predation existed prior to 'the fall'.

Why is animal suffering evil?

It depends on what one means when they say 'evil.' I'd instead ask -- why animal suffering is (necessary) or even (logical), under such a world view? I'd instead argue that a claimed 'omni' god can do anything he chooses. Are animals, (which suffer by way of being slowly eaten alive), a necessity? If not, then it is gratuitous.

Until you explain why animals must suffer, (by way of being eaten alive), in light of the fact that they lack a), b), and c) above, I'd say it's unnecessary and/or illogical, which deems their suffering gratuitous.

With animals, God gives them life, if for a limited time. Yes, there is suffering, but there are also many good elements for animals as well as good elements animals bring to others. Decay and suffering doesn't eclipse that.

If the (decay and suffering) are gratuitous, then wouldn't it be deemed 'evil'? Is gratuitous suffering 'evil'? Animal suffering, by being eaten alive, looks to be pointless and/or unjustified suffering that serves no "greater good". A "moral wrong", without a redeeming purpose, challenges the existence or nature of a claimed benevolent God, and prompts continued discussion(s) on the problem of "evil" and "theodicy".

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #47]

It depends on what one means when they say 'evil.' I'd instead ask -- why animal suffering is (necessary) or even (logical), under such a world view? I'd instead argue that a claimed 'omni' god can do anything he chooses. Are animals, (which suffer by way of being slowly eaten alive), a necessity? If not, then it is gratuitous.

Is your argument (in basic terms) pointing to the idea of an omni creator entity and saying that such an entity would not create such a state re the unnecessary suffering of blameless animals?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #46]

This passage says plants are given as food for all, it doesn't say it's the only food for all and that no predation is allowed. It's clear that humans weren't to eat animals because they are told they can start eating animals after the flood (long after the fall) in Genesis 9, but it doesn't say there that animals can now start eating each other, so we can't say predation wasn't already present between non-human animals.

I recall that in a prior conversation with you that you stated that you did not understand "the fall" in the same way a lot of Christians did?
Can you briefly describe how you see"the fall" please.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #47]

It depends on what one means when they say 'evil.' I'd instead ask -- why animal suffering is (necessary) or even (logical), under such a world view? I'd instead argue that a claimed 'omni' god can do anything he chooses. Are animals, (which suffer by way of being slowly eaten alive), a necessity? If not, then it is gratuitous.

Is your argument (in basic terms) pointing to the idea of an omni creator entity and saying that such an entity would not create such a state re the unnecessary suffering of blameless animals?

Pretty much, yea? I'm open to revision (at any point). And quite honestly, I'm still peeling back the onions layers myself, out of morbid curiosity, as animal suffering does seem 'gratuitous'. So, IS IT? And if so, is gratuitous suffering 'evil'? I honestly have no 'stake' in this argument though... Like I told Tanager, from the jump, for me, it's like arguing WHAT the attributes really are for Santa Claus. It's just a thought exercise. Maybe the Bible god created animals, which suffer by being torn apart, because he likes to watch them suffer in that way? And since "god" did it, it's deemed 'good'?.?.?.