Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Poseidon]

In the beginning God did not “include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation” nor did He wish for their existence; rather, God created a perfect world where He walked “in paradise at the afternoon air” with man and woman; where the man and woman were innocent and “were not ashamed”; and where God provided “all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat.” But God also provided the conditions (free will) that made it possible for a perfectly created people either to accept or reject His loving kindness. God will never force or program mankind into making the perfect choice; nor will He ever rob mankind of their free will to make choices. (Basically, the reasons God created human beings was to fellowship and to share His love and other attributes with them.) And as a sign of their faithfulness to Him, God asked mankind to do just one simple thing, which was not to eat from a certain tree. Mankind rebelled against that one easy request, ate from the tree, and brought a curse and therefore brought things like “carnivory, parasitism, and disease” to the world. The reason, then, that disease, decay, and suffering exist in the world today is not that God created those things, but that the first created human beings began to use their free-will gift in choosing the ways of self instead of the ways of God.

You’re implying here a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is rejected by pretty much all modern scientists. Life first appeared about 700 million years ago, and humanity only about 150,000 years ago. That means that animals were eating each other for 699,850,000 years before humanity even was around to sin and bring about the fall of creation. Unless you’re going to try to tell me that t-rex was a plant-eating dinosaur…

 

[Poseidon]

I believe that possibly these didn’t occur until Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience, because then creation became disordered. I also think that until their sin, both they AND the animals only ate vegetation.

Now, there could well have been parasites as those on cattle or other things but for a good reason.

God did give us dominion though over all the other creatures, but all the other creatures kill for FOOD, not for enjoyment as some humans do.

All in all though, I think that most is the result of original sin. In Revelation though we are told that in the “new earth” the lion will lie down next to the lamb", so there will be no more of killing for food or anything else.

Like shoe, you’re implying a literal interpretation of Genesis. Look at my post #340, where I addressed this.

 

[Poseidon]

Thank you po18guy, And I believe most of these things happened after the fall. The Garden of Eden seemed peaceful enough, but that wasn’t good enough for our human nature.

The Catechism asks, “Why was man created?” and the answer given in the Catechism is “To show forth the goodness of God.” The* goodness* of God, not the opposite was God’s first loving intent. It was we as humans who allowed all the heartache to enter into the world.

This is a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not supported by any scientific evidence, and in fact there’s a lot of evidence against it. Please look at post #340.

Also, I’d just like to point out - if God created us to be manifestations of his goodness, he did a pretty lousy job of it. Doesn’t seem to me to be the handiwork of an infinite being.

 

[BobCatholic]

No, it’s definitely suicide. You were talking about going over and preaching specifically so you could be killed for it. No one goes out intending to be a martyr. That’s just craziness.

Not craziness. It is the only way for me to make God happy.

 

[Poseidon]

Not craziness. It is the only way for me to make God happy.

I think you may want to see a counselor, or a priest. Because it most definitely is craziness.

 

[BobCatholic]

I think you may want to see a counselor, or a priest. Because it most definitely is craziness.

If you know how I can make God happy and have my suffering stop, I’m open to ideas. So far, I’ve got none.

 

[Holly3278]

Such things were not a part of the original creation. They became a part of creation due to the fall of Adam and Eve.

 

[Poseidon]

Such things were not a part of the original creation. They became a part of creation due to the fall of Adam and Eve.

Please see post number 340. A literal interpretation of Genesis is rejected by almost all scientists, and even if a literal interpretation was true, am I somehow supposed to believe that dinosaurs, lions, wolves, and all the other carnivores out there once ate plants?

 

[Poseidon]

If you know how I can make God happy and have my suffering stop, I’m open to ideas. So far, I’ve got none.

It sounds to me like you have clinical depression…I’ve had depression as well, and I know that it sucks. You really should seek out some sort of counseling, or even a doctor.

 

[BobCatholic]

It sounds to me like you have clinical depression…I’ve had depression as well, and I know that it sucks. You really should seek out some sort of counseling, or even a doctor.

I did. Doesn’t help with my problem of unemployment, which is a result of God not loving me temporally.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

This is a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not supported by any scientific evidence, and in fact there’s a lot of evidence against it. Please look at post #340.

Also, I’d just like to point out - if God created us to be manifestations of his goodness, he did a pretty lousy job of it. Doesn’t seem to me to be the handiwork of an infinite being.

I’m always curious:compcoff: why, although everyone is certainly very welcome here, an atheist would even care what people of faith:harp: have to say about things. To base one’s life on scientific evidence alone is missing out on so much! We can’t prove the existence of love or compassion in any scientific way, but we all know there is such joy in the world as is found in loving acts of kindness and valor.

And you’ve heard of free will, I’m sure. God allows the freedom. We are not puppets. He could have stopped with plants, animals, oceans, flora and fauna, but here we all are.( If dinosaurs ate each other millions of years ago, they did so to survive, not out of murderous intent). Man is called to something much higher: a relationship with God and His loving mercy.

My hope is that people who doubt will feel welcome to participate in these forums. For my part, I cannot look at the sky, or flocks of birds flying in formation, all the vastness of the universe and not see God’s infinite design at each point along the way.

The closer I get to death, (and thanks to God, we just beat stage two malignant melanoma :crutches:together) I see so much more than I did in my youth. I always believed in God, but I had very few people around to explain why they believed as they did and why they had such faith.

There are certainly cruel people around, but that is not God’s original, Divine Intent. When people disappoint us, it isn’t God’s plan. How he grieves to see people in distress! All the saints of The Church have worked for centuries to bring the world back to God’s Divine, compassionate intent.

His grace is there, in His saints, in His Church, all throughout history. Even when wolves in sheep’s clothing give us their worst, God’s compassionate intent remains the one constant in the world. All things that you say are “lousy” point to something that has fallen away from that loving intent due to free will.

Faith is unclenching the fists pointed toward God in anger and folding the same hands in humble prayer for understanding.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. What is it we all hope for? Not destruction or evil, but goodness and righteousness! That is faith. You may simply be stretching towards it. If not now, perhaps later.

God did not do a lousy job at all. He created beings free to live as they chose. I hope you’ll read C.S. Lewis’ works, regarding ultimate good and people’s expectations. The very argument that something is “lousy” proves that you are operating on the very correct assumption that there is such a thing as good and evil, and that evil choices are a falling away from something that is better, higher, Divine.

Think about that for a moment. You say that something is out of line, “lousy,” but that is based on your assumption that there is a way that things and people should be operating in the world! If there is no God, who cares? Why bother to :slapfight:debate anything?

My hope is that you’ll give faith a chance. You may not believe in God, but that doesn’t change the fact that He believes in you and may be using your very questions to draw you closer to His explanations. He’s not afraid of your questions as mere humans might be, and He is well able to speak through history, scripture, and most of all, the gift of faith. I hope you’ll be receptive to the fact that Catholics care deeply for each individual, and that is our purpose, to show forth His goodness in the world.

If you haven’t come across anyone who told you that or showed you true compassion, I pray:getholy: that you will. You may not believe that you are a beloved Child of God, but I believe you are and hope you will embrace that truth, rather than mere science, which, like nature, is only one of His handmaidens. He is over all that we see. Nature points to Him, but does not define Him.

What defines Him best is compassion and respect for all people. I hope you meet many such people along your life’s journey.:grouphug:

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

 

[tonyrey]

I did. Doesn’t help with my problem of unemployment, which is a result of God not loving me temporally.

That is the first time (and probably the last) I have heard God being blamed for unemployment! What men do (or don’t do) must count for nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m always curious why, although everyone is certainly very welcome here, an atheist would even care what people of faithhave to say about things. To base one’s life on scientific evidence alone is missing out on so much! We can’t prove the existence of love or compassion in any scientific way, but we all know there is such joy in the world as is found in loving acts of kindness and valor.

And you’ve heard of free will, I’m sure. God allows the freedom. We are not puppets. He could have stopped with plants, animals, oceans, flora and fauna, but here we all are.( If dinosaurs ate each other millions of years ago, they did so to survive, not out of murderous intent). Man is called to something much higher: a relationship with God and His loving mercy.

My hope is that people who doubt will feel welcome to participate in these forums. For my part, I cannot look at the sky, or flocks of birds flying in formation, all the vastness of the universe and not see God’s infinite design at each point along the way.

The closer I get to death, (and thanks to God, we just beat stage two malignant melanoma together) I see so much more than I did in my youth. I always believed in God, but I had very few people around to explain why they believed as they did and why they had such faith.

There are certainly cruel people around, but that is not God’s original, Divine Intent. When people disappoint us, it isn’t God’s plan. How he grieves to see people in distress! All the saints of The Church have worked for centuries to bring the world back to God’s Divine, compassionate intent.

His grace is there, in His saints, in His Church, all throughout history. Even when wolves in sheep’s clothing give us their worst, God’s compassionate intent remains the one constant in the world. All things that you say are “lousy” point to something that has fallen away from that loving intent due to free will.

Faith is unclenching the fists pointed toward God in anger and folding the same hands in humble prayer for understanding.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. What is it we all hope for? Not destruction or evil, but goodness and righteousness! That is faith. You may simply be stretching towards it. If not now, perhaps later.

God did not do a lousy job at all. He created beings free to live as they chose. I hope you’ll read C.S. Lewis’ works, regarding ultimate good and people’s expectations. The very argument that something is “lousy” proves that you are operating on the very correct assumption that there is such a thing as good and evil, and that evil choices are a falling away from something that is better, higher, Divine.

Think about that for a moment. You say that something is out of line, “lousy,” but that is based on your assumption that there is a way that things and people should be operating in the world! If there is no God, who cares? Why bother to debate anything?

My hope is that you’ll give faith a chance. You may not believe in God, but that doesn’t change the fact that He believes in you and may be using your very questions to draw you closer to His explanations. He’s not afraid of your questions as mere humans might be, and He is well able to speak through history, scripture, and most of all, the gift of faith. I hope you’ll be receptive to the fact that Catholics care deeply for each individual, and that is our purpose, to show forth His goodness in the world.

If you haven’t come across anyone who told you that or showed you true compassion, I pray that you will. You may not believe that you are a beloved Child of God, but I believe you are and hope you will embrace that truth, rather than mere science, which, like nature, is only one of His handmaidens. He is over all that we see. Nature points to Him, but does not define Him.

What defines Him best is compassion and respect for all people. I hope you meet many such people along your life’s journey.:grouphug:

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

An inspiring post, Kathryn! :clapping:

 

[tonyrey]

Please see post number 340. A literal interpretation of Genesis is rejected by almost all scientists, and even if a literal interpretation was true, am I somehow supposed to believe that dinosaurs, lions, wolves, and all the other carnivores out there once ate plants?

 

[Poseidon]

Wait, are you saying that I am supposed to believe that? Or are you agreeing with me?

 

[tonyrey]

If you know how I can make God happy and have my suffering stop, I’m open to ideas. So far, I’ve got none.

1. Why do you think God has stopped loving you - even for a second?
2. Is it because you haven’t suffered enough?
3. Is God causing the suffering?
4. Do you think God wants you - or anyone else - to suffer?
5. Is it because you deserve to suffer?
6. If not why?

 

[tonyrey]

Wait, are you saying that I am supposed to believe that? Or are you agreeing with me?

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or** the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures**: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[Sair]

I’m always curious:compcoff: why, although everyone is certainly very welcome here, an atheist would even care what people of faith:harp: have to say about things. To base one’s life on scientific evidence alone is missing out on so much! We can’t prove the existence of love or compassion in any scientific way, but we all know there is such joy in the world as is found in loving acts of kindness and valor.

I suspect there are a reasonable proportion of atheists who once were people of faith, and as such, maintain an intellectual interest in the kind of reasoning in which we used to engage. One’s perspective on the world changes quite dramatically when you approach it from the position of godlessness, and it’s quite intriguing to examine the differences. Atheists don’t, as a rule at least, simply dismiss the opinions of people of faith as being unimportant (though we might condemn them as being misguided) - what one believes has a demonstrable effect upon one’s actions, after all, so beliefs, of whatever stripe, are important in a practical sense.

I would be interested to know what, precisely, you consider to be “scientific evidence”. There’s a real sense in which anything that we experience is, in principle, amenable to scientific investigation. Science is concerned with finding out how the world works, and that includes how we, as social beings, operate. There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of love, compassion, courage and so on - humans demonstrate them every day.

In principle, anything that impacts upon our experience is open to empirical investigation and scientific explanation. What seems to trouble those who fear “scientism” is that explaining how we experience phenomena such as love, compassion and courage (essentially removing their “mystery”) would somehow diminish the power of those experiences in our lives. That reminds me of the claim some of my classmates made in school, that literary analysis of novels somehow ruined their enjoyment of them. I could never see it, myself, and loved delving into the multiple layers of meaning to be found in the works of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens, for example, or finding out what historical and social circumstances probably influenced their writing. If I discover that love, for example, is a combination of chemical reactions in my body, that is not going to lessen the feeling I experience when I am in the company of a person who inspires these reactions. Love is what it is, and surrounding it with artificial layers of mystery doesn’t seem - to me, anyway - to enhance the experience or its effects in any way.

And you’ve heard of free will, I’m sure. God allows the freedom. We are not puppets. He could have stopped with plants, animals, oceans, flora and fauna, but here we all are.( If dinosaurs ate each other millions of years ago, they did so to survive, not out of murderous intent). Man is called to something much higher: a relationship with God and His loving mercy.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists don’t, as a rule at least, simply dismiss the opinions of people of faith as being unimportant (though we might condemn them as being misguided) - what one believes has a demonstrable effect upon one’s actions, after all, so beliefs, of whatever stripe, are important in a practical sense.

It is wrong and unjust to condemn anyone for being misguided…

I would be interested to know what, precisely, you consider to be “scientific evidence”. There’s a real sense in which anything that we experience is, in principle, amenable to scientific investigation. Science is concerned with finding out how the world works, and that includes how we, as social beings, operate. There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of love, compassion, courage and so on - humans demonstrate them every day.

Not all empirical evidence is scientific.

In principle, anything that impacts upon our experience is open to empirical investigation and scientific explanation.

How are beliefs, emotions, values, principles, ideals and goals empirically investigated and scientifically explained?

What seems to trouble those who fear “scientism” is that explaining how we experience phenomena such as love, compassion and courage (essentially removing their “mystery”) would somehow diminish the power of those experiences in our lives.

It is not a question of fear but fact. The reduction of persons to animals diminishes both the power and also the significance of truth, freedom, justice, love, compassion and courage.

That reminds me of the claim some of my classmates made in school, that literary analysis of novels somehow ruined their enjoyment of them. I could never see it, myself, and loved delving into the multiple layers of meaning to be found in the works of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens, for example, or finding out what historical and social circumstances probably influenced their writing. If I discover that love, for example, is a combination of chemical reactions in my body, that is not going to lessen the feeling I experience when I am in the company of a person who inspires these reactions.

To ignore the “reality” that we are merely biological machines is to live in a dream world…

Love is what it is, and surrounding it with artificial layers of mystery doesn’t seem - to me, anyway - to enhance the experience or its effects in any way.

Does knowledge of combinations of chemical reactions in the body usually enhance their effects?

And you’ve heard of free will, I’m sure. God allows the freedom. We are not puppets. He could have stopped with plants, animals, oceans, flora and fauna, but here we all are.( If dinosaurs ate each other millions of years ago, they did so to survive, not out of murderous intent). Man is called to something much higher: a relationship with God and His loving mercy.
Again - and bringing this back to the point of the thread - I am still wondering why freedom is to be valued above well-being in circumstances where the two ideals are in competition.

Is the freedom to think for oneself of less value than well-being or is it an essential condition of well-being?

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” JS Mill

Why is the free will of a murderer more valuable, in principle, than the well-being of their victims? Why did God not create everyone the way he apparently created a large number of people - free to choose, but disinclined to choose options that cause harm to their fellow beings?

When our interests come first it is impossible to be totally disinclined to avoid harm to - or even be aware of - those we don’t know. That is to postulate a degree of moral perfection that does not exist.

And why go to all the trouble of creating so many millions of animals that don’t have free will, and don’t have the choice to avoid harming each other, when the ultimate intent, the ultimate value, was to create beings with free will?

That question is based on the false assumption that the lives of animals have no intrinsic value of their own and that they exist **only **as a stepping stone to homo sapiens.

The way the world operates, the way evolution unfolds, do not suggest an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent designer.

The immense value of life (and love) is far more adequately and coherently explained by Design than by random combinations of purposeless particles.

Some would claim that all these millions of years of evolution were somehow necessary to bring about the existence of humans, but one can’t help wondering whether it was worth it; not to mention why, when an omnipotent creator is supposed to have been involved, our existence couldn’t have been accomplished without the need for such a vicious process of natural selection.

“vicious” is a subjective opinion in the materialist’s scheme of things. To deny natural selection is necessary implies knowledge of an alternative means of development -unless (as Schopenhauer remarked) it would be better if life had never existed on this planet. No such explanation has ever been presented.

That kind of assertion makes a nonsense of the Biblical claim that “anything is possible with God.”

That assertion implies omniscience without which the precise scope of omnipotence cannot be understood.

 

[Sair]

It is wrong and unjust to condemn anyone for being misguided…

One can condemn a belief or an opinion without condemning the person who holds it.

Not all empirical evidence is scientific.

Such as?

How are beliefs, emotions, values, principles, ideals and goals empirically investigated and scientifically explained?

With far greater facility than they are elucidated by any reference to supernatural phenomena. You must have noticed that there is a growing body of scientific investigation into how people experience emotion, formulate goals, values and ideals, and arrive at beliefs - and how these impact upon our behaviour.

It is not a question of fear but fact. The reduction of persons to animals diminishes both the power and also the significance of truth, freedom, justice, love, compassion and courage.

In what respect? We still experience states of affairs that correspond to our conceptions of truth, freedom, justice, love, compassion and courage, even if these are not the reified, independent entities they have been romantically imagined to be. Considering the value you place on truth, I wonder at the fact that you would apparently rather cling to an edifying fantasy than discover what’s really going on in the human psyche.

To ignore the “reality” that we are merely biological machines is to live in a dream world…

And again, if we happen to be “merely” biological machines (with all the capabilities we actually possess, even if they don’t turn out to be supernatural) why would you wish to ignore this in favour of a belief in human transcendence of physical reality?

Does knowledge of combinations of chemical reactions in the body usually enhance their effects?

Not necessarily, but it certainly doesn’t diminish them either.

Is the freedom to think for oneself of less value than well-being or is it an essential condition of well-being?

Why would it be an essential condition of well-being? You don’t believe other animals are capable of thinking for themselves, yet presumably don’t doubt that they are capable of comfort and contentment and general good health. In any case, the question is whether the ability to choose to inflict harm is to be valued above all other considerations, including the well-being of those harmed by said freely-chosen actions. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether we actually have free will in the supernaturalist sense, what would be the expected response of any benevolent being when faced with a situation in which a person wants to commit a harmful act against another? If you or I knew that someone intended to beat up their innocent neighbour, and could prevent it without prohibitive cost to ourselves, would we hang back on the basis that to interfere would be inhibiting the free will of the violent-offender-to-be? Or would we value the well-being of the innocent neighbour more highly and step in to prevent them from being harmed? We would interfere, surely, for the sake of preventing harm. If your god has different values to what we would exercise in such a situation, why does anyone bother to worship him?

That question is based on the false assumption that the lives of animals have no intrinsic value of their own and that they exist **only **as a stepping stone to homo sapiens.

That is exactly how other animals have been perceived, historically, and are perceived in the context of the supposed necessity of evolution to God’s grand design.

The immense value of life (and love) is far more adequately and coherently explained by Design than by random combinations of purposeless particles.

Go on, then - explain it, and do be sure to account for how the wanton expenditure of life through predation, disease and natural disasters is part of that intentional design. If it is indeed the designer who values life, as opposed to this value being the subjective response of we who are alive, then you must have a good explanation for these highly incongruous design features.

“vicious” is a subjective opinion in the materialist’s scheme of things. To deny natural selection is necessary implies knowledge of an alternative means of development -unless (as Schopenhauer remarked) it would be better if life had never existed on this planet. No such explanation has ever been presented.

Except in the Bible, and every other creation myth ever invented by humans. Natural development is, in principle, unnecessary in a designed universe.

That assertion implies omniscience without which the precise scope of omnipotence cannot be understood.

Both these attributes are ascribed to your god. What is his excuse?