What would you do if you were God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel1991
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradski said:
I think that if I designed a system whereby animals had to kill and eat each other, often in the most horrifying manner (we ain’t talking neat and tidy abbatoirs here), then I might be described as evil.

I watched an Attenborough doc last night. Some crocs killed a Wildebeast. It took them an hour to do it. Lions like to eat dead meat but hyenas aren’t fussy. They start eating waaaaay before you are anywhere near dead.

Great system…
Click to expand...
The onus is on you to produce a superior alternative which would prove you have greater insight and knowledge than God into the art of creating biospheres - especially after conceding you are grateful for all the blessings you have received in your life on this planet. There seems to be some disparity between your two views because it would be more logical to agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet in view of the amount of “horrifying” amount of evil in this world where animals are supposedly tortured unnecessarily in the most diabolical ways. It amounts to gross selfishness to accept all earthly joys and pleasures for yourself when you know that so many others are compelled to endure such needless prolonged agony on behalf of the fortunate few like ourselves who live in a virtual paradise…
 
tonyrey said:
The onus is on you to produce a superior alternative…
Click to expand...
I just did, Tony.

Let me ask you what you would think of a zoo that fed live antelope to their hyenas. You’d think at least that, hey, there’s go to be a better way than that!

It’s the problem of evil again. You must have heard of it. Quite a conundrum.
 
Bradski said:
I think that if I designed a system whereby animals had to kill and eat each other, often in the most horrifying manner (we ain’t talking neat and tidy abbatoirs here), then I might be described as evil.
Click to expand...
Then your understanding of “evil” may require adjustment. Or at least the concession that it’s rather subjective.

Reminds me of one of the old Norse eddas where the author considers the bird freezing to death on a branch in winter. It essentially goes: “Do you think the bird feels sorry for itself? No, this is the way it is”.

Don’t quote that too heavily. I read that 20 years ago in a lit course.
I watched an Attenborough doc last night. Some crocs killed a Wildebeast. It took them an hour to do it. Lions like to eat dead meat but hyenas aren’t fussy. They start eating waaaaay before you are anywhere near dead.
Click to expand...
Great system…
Click to expand...
Per the chief rule of marginal analysis, if the carnivore exists in the theistic world and the secular world, then isn’t it to be excluded from the comparison? Again, by rule?
 
Bradski said:
The onus is on you to produce a superior alternative…
Click to expand...
When and where did you present a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia?
Let me ask you what you would think of a zoo that fed live antelope to their hyenas. You’d think at least that, hey, there’s go to be a better way than that!
Click to expand...
A zoo is a human invention which doesn’t correspond in the slightest to a natural environment.
It’s the problem of evil again. You must have heard of it. Quite a conundrum.
Click to expand...
]It doesn’t make sense to distinguish good from evil in an amoral scheme of things. A consistent atheist like Camus or Sartre admits that without God everything is absurd, i.e. ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

I admire you because you persevere in spite of being outnumbered by theists on this forum.👍 But I must persevere in asking you how you decide what is good or evil.
What is wrong with predation? Why do you object to it?
Click to expand...
 
Vonsalza said:
Then your understanding of “evil” may require adjustment. Or at least the concession that it’s rather subjective.

Reminds me of one of the old Norse eddas where the author considers the bird freezing to death on a branch in winter. It essentially goes: “Do you think the bird feels sorry for itself? No, this is the way it is”.

Don’t quote that too heavily. I read that 20 years ago in a lit course.

Per the chief rule of marginal analysis, if the carnivore exists in the theistic world and the secular world, then isn’t it to be excluded from the comparison? Again, by rule?
Click to expand...
Neat! 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
What is wrong with predation? Why do you object to it?
Click to expand...
OK, Tony. Time for dinner. Do you:

Tear a live rabbit apart with your bare hands and make a stew OR…

Have a cheese omelette.

What? You think that killing a rabbit in that fashion is cruel, inhumane and barbaric? But…that’s the way that it happens in the natural world! That’s the way that God planned it. Who needs pathetic, grass eating animals when you can make them carnivores and have them tear each other apart.

Let’s see some action!
 
Why do you feel it necessary to defend predation, TR?

Arguments from the supposed ‘beauty’ of nature are not arguments at all, because subjective.

ICXC NIKA
 
Bradski said:
OK, Tony. Time for dinner. Do you:

Tear a live rabbit apart with your bare hands and make a stew OR…

Have a cheese omelette.

What? You think that killing a rabbit in that fashion is cruel, inhumane and barbaric? But…that’s the way that it happens in the natural world! That’s the way that God planned it. Who needs pathetic, grass eating animals when you can make them carnivores and have them tear each other apart.

Let’s see some action!
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant!

What is **intrinsically wrong **with predation and why do you object to it?

The key question which you have evaded is:

How you decide what is good or evil?

NB It doesn’t make sense to distinguish good from evil in an amoral scheme of things. A consistent atheist like Camus or Sartre admits that without God everything is absurd, i.e. ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
 
tonyrey said:
Totally irrelevant!

What is **intrinsically wrong **with predation and why do you object to it?
Click to expand...
I’m not objecting to it. I am pointing out that anyone who designed a system whereby animals for billions of years need to tear each other apart just to live would seem not to have any concern for their welfare.
 
Bradski said:
I’m not objecting to it. I am pointing out that anyone who designed a system whereby animals for billions of years need to tear each other apart just to live would seem not to have any concern for their welfare.
Click to expand...
Welfare as a group or welfare as an individual? Is God an egoist or a classic communist (nowadays paraded as “utilitarian” for obvious reasons)?

Perhaps your understanding needs tweaking. After all, why stop at animals? Doesn’t the herbivore have to brutally tear apart the living flora in order to survive, swallowing the plant matter while it yet lives?
 
Bradski said:
What is **intrinsically wrong **

with predation and why do you object to it? I’m not objecting to it. I am pointing out that anyone who designed a system whereby animals for billions of years need to tear each other apart just to live would seem not to have any concern for their welfare.
Click to expand...
Your two statements are inconsistent. You do object to the apparent lack of concern for the welfare of animals which “have to tear each other apart just to live”. Yet normally predators kill swiftly and efficiently to avoid the risk of serious injury. You don’t take into account the production of endorphins in the brain which act as anaesthetics to minimise pain and suffering. Nor have you explained how a biological system can be designed so that advanced primates develop without depending on other forms of life for nutrition and physical prowess. Not even elephants are vegetarians because they consume insects which are a vital part of their diet. Since competition as well as co-operation is essential for progress in any form of society the onus is on you to produce a feasible blueprint of a biosphere in which every species co-exists in total harmony with every other species without any form of conflict or interference. Otherwise it remains an infantile fantasy…
 
Vonsalza said:
Doesn’t the herbivore have to brutally tear apart the living flora in order to survive, swallowing the plant matter while it yet lives?
Click to expand...
Indeed. But the plant has no nervous system, which would allow it to experience pain. Or be cognizant of its impending demise.These make all the difference.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Indeed. But the plant has no nervous system, which would allow it to experience pain. Or be cognizant of its impending demise.These make all the difference.
Click to expand...
So killing is ok as long as they don’t feel anything. The “baseball bat to someone’s head” reference you’ve used many times is thus not immoral?

Let’s also mention your objection based of being aware of your demise. You think a robin in an ice storm is cognizant of the fact it’s dying? As we’ve covered, self-awareness doesn’t appear to be particularly common in the animal kingdom.

And if pain is the problem, then doesn’t that make any creature with functional claws, fangs and stingers existentially immoral by your standard? Really, all carnivorous creatures are immoral?

👍
 
Vonsalza said:
Welfare as a group or welfare as an individual? Is God an egoist or a classic communist (nowadays paraded as “utilitarian” for obvious reasons)?

Perhaps your understanding needs tweaking. After all, why stop at animals? Doesn’t the herbivore have to brutally tear apart the living flora in order to survive, swallowing the plant matter while it yet lives?
Click to expand...
You are right. I will never forget the sheer horror of watching those wildebeest graze on that poor defenceless plant life. They were tearing it out of the ground as if it was…well, grass. I just hope they didn’t suffer too much.
 
Bradski said:
I’m not objecting to it. I am pointing out that anyone who designed a system whereby animals for billions of years need to tear each other apart just to live would seem not to have any concern for their welfare.
Click to expand...
Very biblical. You seem to be the only person in this discussion who knows your bible.

Paul says "the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8)

And Isaiah prophesizes, in contrast, the new earth and heaven where:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11)
 
See, Tony. God could have had lions eat straw. I mean it’s in the bible. But I guess that if you read that it would be: ‘Pfft. Can’t be done. Not possible. Beyond God’s capabilities’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top