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

[Sair]

And, even if things were better, there would be those who would look for and find other incongruities within the system. No physical system can be perfect for 100% of the world’s inhabitants. No matter how good the present system might be, there will always be those who whine about it. The presupposition that all of this seems to rest on, is that this life is the only life we will ever have, and therefore, it should have been made perfect by the Maker. But, that’s rather arrogant I think.

But is it more or less arrogant than to suppose that we humans have been singled out by a god for a special fate - to attain eternal life, should we so choose, with this god, who designed us in his own image, above the rest of his creation?

Yes, certainly, nonbelievers rail against the idea of a creator god through the vehicle of the problem of evil - especially when believers try to worm their way out of it by claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds and it’s up to atheists to explain in precise detail exactly how an all-powerful creator could have made a better one - because the problem of evil is only a philosophical, religious, spiritual problem if one imagines that the world in which we exist was deliberately fashioned thus by a conscious, powerful and loving being who is conceived as fundamentally like us (no matter how much believers insist that God is beyond human understanding). If there was no person behind the existence of the universe - no-one who knows what it is for a sentient being to suffer, or to experience pleasure and joy, then there is no-one that can be blamed. We might feel inclined to anthropomorphise the weather when it rains on a day we wanted to spend at the beach, but ultimately there is no-one to blame for such a circumstance - unless one believes in a personal god!

 

[JDaniel]

But is it more or less arrogant than to suppose that we humans have been singled out by a god for a special fate - to attain eternal life, should we so choose, with this god, who designed us in his own image, above the rest of his creation?

Sair:

If one were to spend an inordinate amount of time basking in the enjoyment of that knowledge, then, perhaps, yes. But, some of us don’t do that.

Yes, certainly, nonbelievers rail against the idea of a creator god through the vehicle of the problem of evil - because the problem of evil is only a philosophical, religious, spiritual problem if one imagines that the world in which we exist was deliberately fashioned thus by a conscious, powerful and loving being who is conceived as fundamentally like us (no matter how much believers insist that God is beyond human understanding).

And He is. However, in the Christian Faiths, it is conceded that God left footprints and clues around for us to find - even in the world of Physics. So, we have our God, who is “beyond human comprehension” but we are aided by Revelation, reason, Faith, and science.

If there was no person behind the existence of the universe - no-one who knows what it is for a sentient being to suffer, or to experience pleasure and joy, then there is no-one that can be blamed.

Why is it that some of us do not place blame?

We might feel inclined to anthropomorphise the weather when it rains on a day we wanted to spend at the beach, but ultimately there is no-one to blame for such a circumstance - unless one believes in a personal god!

A “personal [G]od” is irrelevant in your illustration. However, it is our belief that God causes everything - including the inclement weather.

God bless,
jd

 

[Serious]

I’m delighted you would prefer to be a vegetable - or a robot! It would solve all your problems very neatly…

Your lack of comprehenshion did not change. Looks like you missed the point of “sentient beings”. Since there is no LOGICAL problem of creating sentient beings out of … hmmm… dust? A world without pain is possible. Only an unimaginative person thinks inside his own small box and is unable to imagine anything outside it. Not to mention that your post did not contain any information pertaining to the question … as usual it was just an inane assumption about my preferences.

 

[Gaber]

But is it more or less arrogant than to suppose that we humans have been singled out by a god for a special fate - to attain eternal life, should we so choose, with this god, who designed us in his own image, above the rest of his creation?

Again this awkward and misleading word: “designed.” And what is meant by “attain” when even in beleif it is given that whatever the outcome, it is “eternal.” a state which does not admit duration.

Yes, certainly, nonbelievers rail against the idea of a creator god through the vehicle of the problem of evil - especially when believers try to worm their way out of it by claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds and it’s up to atheists to explain in precise detail exactly how an all-powerful creator could have made a better one - because the problem of evil is only a philosophical, religious, spiritual problem if one imagines that the world in which we exist was deliberately fashioned thus by a conscious, powerful and loving being who is conceived as fundamentally like us (no matter how much believers insist that God is beyond human understanding).

Wow. that is quite the sentence! And so rich in semantically analizable ideas and words. It is arguable from either standpoint, but mostly from a third, that this is indeed the best possible world given the circumstances. And the idea that it isn’t is ccertainly a great cause for suffering, or the act of arguing with reality about pain. Yes, pain and suffering are rather distinct identies conflated by those who haven’t yet made the experiential discrimination between the two.

Another distinction that is not made is the one b etween the necessary peronal appearance of God by those who still think that they are fundamentally persons. But that is also a condition that can be overcome with some work and, of course, Grace,

If there was no person behind the existence of the universe - no-one who knows what it is for a sentient being to suffer, or to experience pleasure and joy, then there is no-one that can be blamed.

Alejeluiah! THERE we go!!!

We might feel inclined to anthropomorphise the weather when it rains on a day we wanted to spend at the beach, but ultimately there is no-one to blame for such a circumstance - unless one believes in a personal god!

But as in all things there is a kind of curve of distribution, heavy at the “believing” end, among those who come to conclusions about this. The thinest end is comprised of those who have transformed in their spirituality, whatever their bacground, into that state that sees clearly beyond the mechination of the mind and see what the mind is. They also “get,” if they think about it, what the actual referent is to the “fall.”

 

[Blacksword]

Everything that has been said to rectify the two propositions either assumes that God couldn’t have created the world and made it work without all the suffering, or that the suffering is necessary in order to provide a greater good - human free will.

The first point is fallacious. God is omnipotent. To say that there is something he couldn’t do means that he is not omnipotent. A world without suffering is not a logical absurdity like a square circle. We’ve already shown that diseases aren’t necessary for life to work. We eradicated smallpox, and nothing but good has come of it. I would argue that the tapeworm is not necessary for any other life form to exist - nothing eats it (to my knowledge). It does nothing but slowly starve its host.

I’ll address this point. So you say, but you have no reason to assume the “non-necessity” of the tapeworm. A world with true freedom in creation I assert with equal surety, and with better evidence, IS impossible without suffering.

You’re looking at things as they are now, but we have no way of knowing the exact course of biological evolution that would have brought us here. It may well be that withou the tapeworm, or some creature much like it in the course of biological development, there would be no us. Beneficial bacteria develop as do harmful ones, the bacteria in the human stomachs and intestines for instance. it all developed interconnectedly, and so we have no evidence or basis on which to conclude that life could reasonably have developed at all, let alone to the point of sentient life, without such organisms in the mix. The objection sounds much like, at it’s most basic, “I think things could have been better while still having the things I like about this world like my free will, so therefore God doesn’t exist”. It’s a baseless assertion.

 

[punkforchrist]

prodigalson2011:

I’m not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but in hopes that someone can help me resolve this issue. I find the fine tuning argument to be a pretty intriguing one, but it seems to have a fatal flaw: our resurrected bodies. Catholic teaching holds that our resurrected bodies will be glorified, in that they will be physical bodies but will not be subject to all of the laws of physics by which they are currently bound. How would you reconcile that with the idea that if the laws of physics are changed, biological life would be impossible?

Good question. As defenders of the fine-tuning argument will point out, the constants need only be fine-tuned to the existing laws of physics, and not to alternative laws. Our resurrected bodies, themselves being transformed, will plausibly exist in a transformed universe, where the current laws of physics no longer apply. After all, it’s not as if entropy will continue to advance toward a state of thermodynamic equilibrium once we are resurrected.

 

[tonyrey]

Your lack of comprehenshion did not change. Looks like you missed the point of “sentient beings”. Since there is no LOGICAL problem of creating sentient beings out of … hmmm… dust? A world without pain is possible. Only an unimaginative person thinks inside his own small box and is unable to imagine anything outside it. Not to mention that your post did not contain any information pertaining to the question … as usual it was just an inane assumption about my preferences.

Your post is merely a set of argumenta ad hominem.

1. A physical world is composed not of logical possibilities but of consistent facts.
2. The fantasy of a painless Utopia needs to be substantiated by **a feasible blueprint **before it is credible.
3. The hubristic assumption that one can design a better universe than the existing universe amounts to a presumption of insight and experience in creating universes.
4. Precise knowledge of the scope of omnipotence when creating a universe presupposes omniscience.
5. Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency.

 

[tonyrey]

And yes, I do consider the concept of an afterlife to be fictional - in its own right, an unprovable and unknowable assertion, a comforting act of wishful thinking.

It must be extremely comforting to live according to the principle that you can do what you like with impunity without having to be concerned with the effects of your behaviour after you die. It’s a genuine carte blanche for libertinage and every other vice…

Of course the concept of this life as the be-all-and-end-all of existence is a provable and knowable assertion. isn’t it?

 

[Poseidon]

It must be extremely comforting to live according to the principle that you can do what you like with impunity without having to be concerned with the effects of your behaviour after you die. It’s a genuine carte blanche for libertinage and every other vice…

Of course the concept of this life as the be-all-and-end-all of existence is a provable and knowable assertion. isn’t it?

Let’s stop insulting each other, and get back to the question at hand please.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Carnivory, parasitism, disease and any other form of harm brings physical death but as Christ has risen from the dead we do not die like we did before the resurrection of a spiritual death.We don’t die a spiritual death that all did after the fall and before the resurrection.That is what Jesus gives us by his sacrifice eternal spiritual life.We don’t die anymore so it doesn’t mater what kills our bodies.This question only focuses on physical death and thats not the death that Jesus won victory for.The fall brought on the spiritual death of man.

Hi,:angel1: I just wanted to add: The fall also brought on physical death of humanity as well as spiritual death. And Jesus gives us more than spiritual life in Heaven. Through His Resurrection, He gives us both a spiritual and physical body that will never die, a glorified body.

After His Resurrection,:heaven: Jesus walked, talked, ate, drank, and was both a spiritual and physical being. catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body It is a major tenet of the Church. May your day be blessed!

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s stop insulting each other, and get back to the question at hand please.

I have not replied with insults but statements of fact:

1. If there is no afterlife you don’t have to be concerned about the ultimate consequences of your behaviour.
2. The assertion that this life is the be-all-and-end-all of existence has not been proved.

PS The argumentum ad hominem contained in the phrase “a comforting act of wishful thinking” merits a robust response.

 

[Poseidon]

I have not replied with insults but statements of fact:

1. If there is no afterlife you don’t have to be concerned about the ultimate consequences of your behaviour.
2. The assertion that this life is the be-all-and-end-all of existence has not been proved.

PS The argumentum ad hominem contained in the phrase “a comforting act of wishful thinking” merits a robust response.

It seemed a bit offensive to me so I just wanted to get us back on track.

 

[Poseidon]

Your post is merely a set of argumenta ad hominem.

1. A physical world is composed not of logical possibilities but of consistent facts.
2. The fantasy of a painless Utopia needs to be substantiated by **a feasible blueprint **before it is credible.

No, it doesn’t. No one here is saying that they personally could design the universe. That’s silly. What we’re saying is that God (omnipotent, able to do anything) could.

1. The hubristic assumption that one can design a better universe than the existing universe amounts to a presumption of insight and experience in creating universes.

No one is saying that they could design a better universe.

1. Precise knowledge of the scope of omnipotence when creating a universe presupposes omniscience.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

1. Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency.

This is assuming that there is something logically inconsistent in the idea that God could create a world without suffering in which there is also free will. I don’t think that is the case.

 

[Sair]

It must be extremely comforting to live according to the principle that you can do what you like with impunity without having to be concerned with the effects of your behaviour after you die. It’s a genuine carte blanche for libertinage and every other vice…

Of course the concept of this life as the be-all-and-end-all of existence is a provable and knowable assertion. isn’t it?

I see no reason to invest in hope for something for which there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking. I lost my fear of death during the ‘deist’ phase of my enlightenment, when I realised that there might not be an afterlife, but if there was, and if there was a genuinely benevolent deity presiding over the universe, then my efforts to live a good life would not go unrecognised at the end, regardless of whether I professed any religious creed or not.

And it’s a common (in both the usual senses of that word) misconception that the lack of belief in an eternal afterlife offers the opportunity to behave however one wants, regardless of consequences. I’m actually surprised that you gave this old chestnut another airing, to be honest. Our actions still have consequences - sometimes dire ones - in this life, and that’s plenty long enough, if we’re lucky.

In any case, it appears that Cardinal George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, has publicly stated that atheists can go to heaven, so in any case, it doesn’t look like I have much to worry about.

 

[Gaber]

I see no reason to invest in hope for something for which there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking. I lost my fear of death during the ‘deist’ phase of my enlightenment, when I realised that there might not be an afterlife, but if there was, and if there was a genuinely benevolent deity presiding over the universe, then my efforts to live a good life would not go unrecognised at the end, regardless of whether I professed any religious creed or not.

And it’s a common (in both the usual senses of that word) misconception that the lack of belief in an eternal afterlife offers the opportunity to behave however one wants, regardless of consequences. I’m actually surprised that you gave this old chestnut another airing, to be honest. Our actions still have consequences - sometimes dire ones - in this life, and that’s plenty long enough, if we’re lucky.

In any case, it appears that Cardinal George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, has publicly stated that atheists can go to heaven, so in any case, it doesn’t look like I have much to worry about.

Ys, this is very well stated. I’d only differ in that “afterlife” is a proceedural misconception as to its nature, our “life” (living) beiing largely a percptual error relative to its Source.

Ad I too, being far from an atheist, find it disturbing that believers seem to insist that a theistic basis for morality is in any way necessary save as an ad hoc mental structuring for those who need such. Those who don’t need it, in fact, appear to have, in my lights, a more sincere and practical foundation for their ethics than people of faith, who contrarily often have the ethics of one whom we might expect to be worse than godless.

 

[JDaniel]

Ad I too, being far from an atheist, find it disturbing that believers seem to insist that a theistic basis for morality is in any way necessary save as an ad hoc mental structuring for those who need such.

Gaber:

Although I dislike saying it, I find that argument to be hand-waving.

Those who don’t need it, in fact, appear to have, in my lights, a more sincere and practical foundation for their ethics than people of faith, who contrarily often have the ethics of one whom we might expect to be worse than godless.

And this statement, too, I find to be nothing more than unsupported assertion.

Both of these positions were held by me - when I was a child. Upon maturing, I recognized them to be really nothing more than position statements - that might endear me to the instigators of the liberal causes that I found myself entertaining, along with some of my friends. Since then, I’ve successfully shaken them off.

God bless,
jd

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Gaber
And I too, being far from an atheist, find it disturbing that believers seem to insist that a theistic basis for morality is in any way necessary save as an ad hoc mental structuring for those who need such.

Gaber:

Although I dislike saying it, I find that argument to be hand-waving.

It isn’t an argument, it is an observation.

Quote:G
Those who don’t need it, in fact, appear to have, in my lights, a more sincere and practical foundation for their ethics than people of faith, who contrarily often have the ethics of one whom we might expect to be worse than godless.

jd:And this statement, too, I find to be nothing more than unsupported assertion.

However it was that you changed your mind, I made that statement from expereince and from reading the news, some very horrific things being done by “religious” people, and heroic selfless things being done by “atheists.” I did not mean any of that as an “allness” statment, and if I gave that impression, I’m sorry. My observations here are about individuals, not groups, eg awm+40’s.

Both of these positions were held by me - when I was a child. Upon maturing, I recognized them to be really nothing more than position statements - that might endear me to the instigators of the liberal causes that I found myself entertaining, along with some of my friends. Since then, I’ve successfully shaken them off.

Sounds like an emulation of Paul. OK, as far as it goes, but have you perhaps thrown your baby out with the bath water? ( a saying that came from the practice of using water so repeatedly that it became too murky to see through!)
God bless,
jd Yes, God does; can’t help being Him/Her?It’self, right?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Gaber,

The moral argument for God’s existence doesn’t state that atheists are incapable of being moral or recognizing moral obligations. That’s an epistemological issue. Rather, the moral argument is a metaphysical argument about what grounds objective moral obligations. The atheist can be moral, but it’s in spite of, and not because of his atheism.

1. Every law has a lawgiver. (Premise)
2. There is an objective moral law. (Premise)
3. Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver. (From 1 and 2)

The theist equates this lawgiver with God.

 

[Serious]

1. Every law has a lawgiver. (Premise)

No. Only human laws presume a lawgiver.

1. There is an objective moral law. (Premise)

No, there is no objective moral “law”. There are lots of objective moral systems.

1. Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver. (From 1 and 2)

Since your premises are wrong, your conclusion does not follow. There is only one basic ethical principle: “the concept of reciprocity”, which is independent from the assumption of any deity. It is expressed as the two forms of the “golden rule”.

 

[punkforchrist]

Serious:

No. Only human laws presume a lawgiver.

Are these (non-human) laws explicable or inexplicable?

No, there is no objective moral “law”. There are lots of objective moral systems.

Do these systems contradict each other?

Since your premises are wrong, your conclusion does not follow. There is only one basic ethical principle: “the concept of reciprocity”, which is independent from the assumption of any deity. It is expressed as the two forms of the “golden rule”.

Whether the argument is right or wrong is beside the point. The purpose of my post was to explain what the moral argument is and is not. Many atheists (and presumably many theists, as well) are under the impression that the moral argument implies that atheists cannot be moral. I was correcting this misinterpretation.