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

[Serious]

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

I did not stipulate that there are non human laws. We have to be careful about the usage of the word “law”. The phrase: “laws of nature” are not really “laws”. And the so call “natural law” which is inscribed on the human heart is just a crock of bad-smelling fertilizer.

Do these systems contradict each other?

They most certainly do. A moral system is simply a collection of the written and unwritten rules which describe a socially acceptable behavior within a specific society at a specific point of time.

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.

That is highly commendable.

 

[Gaber]

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.

You are not putting that “syllogism” forth as an actual or usable argument, are you? Or maybe I underestimate your sense of humor. I don’t know which to think. Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

I see no reason to invest in hope for something for which there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking.

As I have already pointed out there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking that this life terminates for once and for all at death. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in an afterlife because they intuitively recognise the distinction between matter and spirit. The belief that we are merely mindless bodies is self-destructive and soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Sparks in the dark would hardly be capable of all the achievements of mankind.

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.

You have regressed from “might not be” to " wishful thinking"…

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.

The bloodstained history of mankind is evidence enough that the consequences **in this world **are not only an inadequate deterrent but insufficient to justify belief in justice.

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.

What we claim to believe or disbelieve is obviously far less important than how we live but it is a disadvantage to live as if we are the authors of morality and have a carte blanche. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak…”

 

[tonyrey]

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

Jesus didn’t mince words when He was confronted with verbal attacks.
How about “a nest of vipers” and “whited sepulchres”?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

What is the foundation for your ethics?

 

[tonyrey]

1. A physical world is composed not of logical possibilities but of consistent facts.

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

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

You are implying that you could because you allege that you **know **this universe could be better than it is and you know precisely what omnipotence entails…

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

.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.

You have to be omniscient to know precisely what omnipotence entails.

5. 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.

Not only free will but also physical, sentient beings.

 

[utah_rose]

No they did not. Viruses, predatory behavior, and parasites were here long before man existed, hundreds of millions of years in fact. The answer is that God does not view animal death in such ways as evil, any more than do I think of myself as a brute for enjoying the salmon I’ve just finished grilling. Much has been made of this issue, but it simply can be said in response that God allowed life to evolve as it has because it WORKS. The funny thing is that people have an apparent idea that they could do it better if they were God, to which I would say “Sure you could.” The system works wonderfully as it is, and worked to get us here, God’s pinnacle of creation. But as with physics, you can’t just change one small thing without throwing the whe system into chaos. Butterfly effect: change one thing about the works and a million unintended changes occur, maybe making biological life itself impossible.

I think in the Book of Genesis though says when God created animals he also created vegetation they and humans (Adam and Eve) could eat. It’s my understanding that after the fall, nature became distorted, thus disease, and all the others including animals killing animals and probably viruses etc. came into being. Doesn’t it also say that in the last days, the lion will lie with the lamb (and not devour him)? And since God knew in this early time what humans would eat after the fall, he dictated to the Israelites laws regarding this. It makes sense, because for example pork was probably contaminated if not cooked well, and some of the others may have been commanded just for obedience.

 

[Poseidon]

I think in the Book of Genesis though says when God created animals he also created vegetation they and humans (Adam and Eve) could eat. It’s my understanding that after the fall, nature became distorted, thus disease, and all the others including animals killing animals and probably viruses etc. came into being. Doesn’t it also say that in the last days, the lion will lie with the lamb (and not devour him)? And since God knew in this early time what humans would eat after the fall, he dictated to the Israelites laws regarding this. It makes sense, because for example pork was probably contaminated if not cooked well, and some of the others may have been commanded just for obedience.

You’re taking the book of Genesis literally, and that’s not how it is supposed to be read. The earth is not actually only 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve were not real people. Animals existed (and ate each other) long before humans came around, so there’s no way humanity’s fall had anything to do with it.

 

[davidv]

You’re taking the book of Genesis literally, and that’s not how it is supposed to be read. The earth is not actually only 6000 years old, and Adam and Eve were not real people. Animals existed (and ate each other) long before humans came around, so there’s no way humanity’s fall had anything to do with it.

Where does Genesis state that the earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know that Adam and Eve aren’t real people? Where you there?

How do you know how animals behaved prior to the advent of man? Where you there?

Seems like you have not made a case for original sin not having an affect on the current state of the animal kingdom.

 

[Poseidon]

Where does Genesis state that the earth is 6000 years old?

If you trace back the lineages that the Bible lists, Adam lived about 6000 years ago.

How do you know that Adam and Eve aren’t real people? Where you there?

The fossil record shows that modern humans appeared about 150,000 years ago. Not 6000.

How do you know how animals behaved prior to the advent of man? Where you there?

Have you ever seen a T-rex skeleton? Or any other meat-eating dinosaur? They all lived and died before humans even appeared. There’s no way that a t-rex used those teeth to munch on leaves.

Seems like you have not made a case for original sin not having an affect on the current state of the animal kingdom.

Hopefully it’s cleared up now.

 

[davidv]

If you trace back the lineages that the Bible lists, Adam lived about 6000 years ago.

The fossil record shows that modern humans appeared about 150,000 years ago. Not 6000.

Have you ever seen a T-rex skeleton? Or any other meat-eating dinosaur? They all lived and died before humans even appeared. There’s no way that a t-rex used those teeth to munch on leaves.

Hopefully it’s cleared up now.

Who is reading Genesis literalistically now?

Where does Genesis state that creation of earth and Adam and Eve were created simultaneously. There is no timeline in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Since your first premise (that Genesis describe a 6000 yr old earth) is false, nothing is cleared up regarding your original claim that prompted my response.

 

[Poseidon]

Who is reading Genesis literalistically now?

Where does Genesis state that creation of earth and Adam and Eve were created simultaneously. There is no timeline in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Since your first premise (that Genesis describe a 6000 yr old earth) is false, nothing is cleared up regarding your original claim that prompted my response.

It doesn’t matter whether they were created simultaneously or not, and the exact date of 6000 years is irrelevant. Whether they were created two seconds apart or ten thousand years apart they most certainly lived after many, many species had evolved and gone extinct. Many of those species were carnivores, pathogens, and parasites. Therefore original sin can’t have caused these things, because they existed long before humans were even around to have original sin.

Also, the Bible does imply that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. Have a look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Age_of_the_Earth

 

[Sair]

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.

Thank you for this recognition. It’s not often that people of faith can acknowledge that those of us who don’t believe in supernatural entities still have sufficient inclination and motivation towards ethical action. Ultimately, I think one’s approach to morality depends upon the balance between rationally-held beliefs and uncritically-held beliefs. If the former win out, a person is more likely to behave in an ethical manner, regardless of whether or not they admit of the possibility of gods and souls and such; if the latter, I suspect anyway, a person is more likely to act upon unconsidered impulse, and back up their ethical precepts with ‘reasoning’ that amounts to nothing more than an instinctive or culturally programmed disgust response.

 

[Sair]

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.

Many Muslim theists claim their lawgiver tells them to kill apostates - those who learn that their god is a fiction - and also women who dare to act like adult human beings by exercising even the slightest autonomy - such as wearing something other than a sack-like covering from head to toe, go out of their house without a chaperone, drive a car and so forth. Muslim theists claim Allah as their moral lawgiver, using the exact same logic as you outline above. How can you possibly know that yours is the ‘correct’ moral lawgiver, and that the Muslims are mistaken, when you have exactly the same amount and kind of evidence upon which to make such claims?

 

[Sair]

As I have already pointed out there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking that this life terminates for once and for all at death. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in an afterlife because they intuitively recognise the distinction between matter and spirit. The belief that we are merely mindless bodies is self-destructive and soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Sparks in the dark would hardly be capable of all the achievements of mankind.
You have regressed from “might not be” to " wishful thinking"…

Do you genuinely believe that it’s wishful thinking to suppose that our consciousness ends irrevocably at death? This in spite of the strong evidence to the contrary, namely the dogged clinging to belief in an afterlife of so very many humans throughout history and in the present; and the fact that, based upon my own experience and that of many others, the belief in an afterlife is usually the last thing to go in the process of abandoning religion.

No-one believes we are ‘mindless’ bodies. Just devoid of supernatural souls, which is a different case entirely. It’s hard to destroy that which doesn’t exist in the first place, and there is as little and insubstantial evidence for unnatural souls as there is for an eternal life after physical death. Your catch-cry of “sparks in the dark” fails to recognise the natural complexity attendant upon the reality of our existence.

The bloodstained history of mankind is evidence enough that the consequences **in this world **are not only an inadequate deterrent but insufficient to justify belief in justice.

This is still evidence that belief in supernatural religions is ultimately a denial of death, as Sam Harris so eloquently elucidated today at the Global Atheist Convention - and I have rarely heard such an uplifting speech upon the reality of death, I might add. Furthermore, it’s worth pointing out that much of the bloodshed that stains human history was committed in the name of irrational religious belief. Of course worldly consequences don’t matter when one is convinced an eternal paradise awaits. If all people, everywhere, understood that this life is all we get, the history of human society would probably have played out very differently.

What we claim to believe or disbelieve is obviously far less important than how we live but it is a disadvantage to live as if we are the authors of morality and have a carte blanche. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak…”

As I said, believing we are the authors of our own morality is not a carte blanche. You have merely rephrased the chestnut. You claim it is inadequate to rely upon our natural faculties - our reason, our ethical intuition and our capacity for empathy. Yet to suppose that our morality comes from religion, such as that elucidated in the Bible, is folly. Even avowed Christians cherry-pick the sections of the Bible they choose to obey. And to imagine that the God of Classical Theism, as portrayed in the Bible, is the great law-giver to whom we turn for guidance, is quite simply absurd. Any human who sought to appease their own anger at a supposed offence by submitting their own offspring for slaughter would rightly be considered a monster. Yet somehow, the Christian god gets a free pass for this one. With all due respect, please try again to justify your reliance upon your god for moral direction.

 

[JDaniel]

Many Muslim theists claim their lawgiver tells them to kill apostates - those who learn that their god is a fiction - and also women who dare to act like adult human beings by exercising even the slightest autonomy - such as wearing something other than a sack-like covering from head to toe, go out of their house without a chaperone, drive a car and so forth. Muslim theists claim Allah as their moral lawgiver, using the exact same logic as you outline above. How can you possibly know that yours is the ‘correct’ moral lawgiver, and that the Muslims are mistaken, when you have exactly the same amount and kind of evidence upon which to make such claims?

Sair:

God, Son and Holy Spirit. Christians believe that God spoke to us directly, man to men, through His human aspect, Jesus Christ. Muslims parse those parts of the historical narrative and relegate Him to prophet status. Furthermore, reasonable men can regard promulgated laws and determine whether or not said laws are just, and not just self-serving. Reasonable men can hold discussions and weed out that which is unjust and self-serving. It’s really not that hard.

We are not called “Christians” because someone pulled the word out of a void. When the first men and woman became men and women, they could easily have taken a different route. Torture could have been fun, just as it is for the average Troglodyte today. Others could have been food, just as they are with the occasional cannibal today. If something that we can only describe as “natural law” had not been a very part of the nature of the earliest men, I think there would have been no dawning of mankind.

(Sorry for butting in. )

God bless,
jd

 

[Gaber]

Thank you for this recognition. It’s not often that people of faith can acknowledge that those of us who don’t believe in supernatural entities still have sufficient inclination and motivation towards ethical action. Ultimately, I think one’s approach to morality depends upon the balance between rationally-held beliefs and uncritically-held beliefs. If the former win out, a person is more likely to behave in an ethical manner, regardless of whether or not they admit of the possibility of gods and souls and such; if the latter, I suspect anyway, a person is more likely to act upon unconsidered impulse, and back up their ethical precepts with ‘reasoning’ that amounts to nothing more than an instinctive or culturally programmed disgust response.

Yes, that seems to be the case. Ultimately, at least at some form of refinement, morality appears to be a) based on and ethic of survival of more than just one’s own person, and b) the perception and then feeling of seeing one’s self in another. Ultimately it is perceiviing the other as not different from one’s self. Hence the Golden Rule(s) and the Great Commandments.

Glad ou are on these pages.

 

[Gaber]

Sair:

God, Son and Holy Spirit. Christians believe that God spoke to us directly, man to men, through His human aspect, Jesus Christ. Muslims parse those parts of the historical narrative and relegate Him to prophet status. Furthermore, reasonable men can regard promulgated laws and determine whether or not said laws are just, and not just self-serving. Reasonable men can hold discussions and weed out that which is unjust and self-serving. It’s really not that hard.

We are not called “Christians” because someone pulled the word out of a void. When the first men and woman became men and women, they could easily have taken a different route. Torture could have been fun, just as it is for the average Troglodyte today. Others could have been food, just as they are with the occasional cannibal today. If something that we can only describe as “natural law” had not been a very part of the nature of the earliest men, I think there would have been no dawning of mankind.

(Sorry for butting in. )

God bless,
jd

I don’t feel that you are “butting in.” You make some good poiints. My sense, from this perspective of beiing RC, is that “natural law” stems from the pre=existing condition of having been “made” in the image and likeness of God. In a state of advanced maturity, compared to the level of most of the race, one can see this pre=existing condition as a recoginition of commonality. That recognition can be ascribed to several sources, only one of them religious, yet all stemming from an underlying reality. But the perception of this underlying reality is the result of work, expereince, insight, and grace. Religion, meaing “to tie back to,” is useful in the begining and even middle phase for those who actually utilize it in a philosophical sense and have a sense of inquiry and a genuine thirst for waht is beyond the obvious. But many get stuck in the folk or literalist “understanding” and are like children who need to be guided into the rules of a game until tthey discern its “spirit” and can go from thinking about it to feel, the way we actually do anything when we are accomp;ished. Then we can get inot esoterics and some rather wonderful revelations/discoveries!

 

[tonyrey]

As I have already pointed out there is a complete lack of evidence other than wishful thinking that this life terminates for once and for all at death. The vast majority of human beings have always believed in an afterlife because they intuitively recognise the distinction between matter and spirit. The belief that we are merely mindless bodies is self-destructive and soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Sparks in the dark would hardly be capable of all the achievements of mankind.
You have regressed from “might not be” to " wishful thinking"…

It is a mistake to generalise about the reasons why specific individuals believe or disbelieve that there is an afterlife.

This in spite of the strong evidence to the contrary, namely the dogged clinging to belief in an afterlife of so very many humans throughout history and in the present; and the fact that, based upon my own experience and that of many others, the belief in an afterlife is usually the last thing to go in the process of abandoning religion.

That has no bearing on whether there is an afterlife.

No-one believes we are ‘mindless’ bodies.

To explain mental activity in terms of cerebral activity amounts to discarding the mind.

Just devoid of supernatural souls, which is a different case entirely. It’s hard to destroy that which doesn’t exist in the first place, and there is as little and insubstantial evidence for unnatural souls as there is for an eternal life after physical death.

There is no evidence whatsoever that all reality is “natural” - nor is it even clear what that term includes.

Your catch-cry of “sparks in the dark” fails to recognise the natural complexity attendant upon the reality of our existence.

The use of the catch-cry “complexity” fails to explain anything.

The bloodstained history of mankind is evidence enough that the consequences in this world are not only an inadequate deterrent but insufficient to justify belief in justice.

This is still evidence that belief in supernatural religions is ultimately a denial of death, as Sam Harris so eloquently elucidated today at the Global Atheist Convention - and I have rarely heard such an uplifting speech upon the reality of death, I might add.

Emotional reactions (especially at evangelistic mass meetings of believers and non-believers alike) prove nothing - except credulity.

Furthermore, it’s worth pointing out that much of the bloodshed that stains human history was committed in the name of irrational religious belief.

Corruptio optima pessima. There is nothing more irrational than the belief that rational beings are magically derived from purposeless, unthinking particles of dust…

Of course worldly consequences don’t matter when one is convinced an eternal paradise awaits.

Provided there is little risk of detection unpleasant consequences don’t matter when one is convinced there is no eternal paradise - or inferno…

If all people, everywhere, understood that this life is all we get, the history of human society would probably have played out very differently.

It certainly would! The law of the jungle would have prevailed in every aspect of life…

What we claim to believe or disbelieve is obviously far less important than how we live but it is a disadvantage to live as if we are the authors of morality and have a carte blanche. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak…”

As I said, believing we are the authors of our own morality is not a carte blanche. You have merely rephrased the chestnut. You claim it is inadequate to rely upon our natural faculties - our reason, our ethical intuition and our capacity for empathy.

You are assume reason is “natural”, provide no explanation of ethical intuition and exaggerate the significance of empathy which has miserably failed to prevent the appalling bloodstained history of mankind with its countless atrocities.

Yet to suppose that our morality comes from religion, such as that elucidated in the Bible, is folly.

To suppose that our morality comes from empathy is folly.

Even avowed Christians cherry-pick the sections of the Bible they choose to obey.

Avowed non-believers cherry-pick **all **the moral rules they choose to obey.

And to imagine that the God of Classical Theism, as portrayed in the Bible, is the great law-giver to whom we turn for guidance, is quite simply absurd. Any human who sought to appease their own anger at a supposed offence by submitting their own offspring for slaughter would rightly be considered a monster.

A distortion of Christian belief which infringes the forum rule of respect - like your other statements. You ignore the fact that Jesus chose of His own free will to be tortured and executed rather than descend to the level of His enemies and be caught up in the vortex of evil and violence.

Yet somehow, the Christian god gets a free pass for this one. With all due respect, please try again to justify your reliance upon your god for moral direction.

Non-believers get a free pass for all their decisions because they recognise no authority superior to themselves - and often reject religion because they find it an obstacle to the satisfaction of their desires - as you have admitted…

 

[utah_rose]

Moral law is written in man’s hearts. Even an atheist knows instinctively that its wrong to murder another human being, wrong to steal someone else’s belongings, etc.

As for the idea that human lived way after animals did, particularly the dinosaurs, we do acknowledge that there were perhaps a sub-human race that did evolve into the human race.

We know that the dinosaurs were destroyed by something or other.

Why couldn’t God after this create a man and a woman? You don’t have to call them Adam and Eve but scientists do say that we all originate from that one man and woman.

And yes, you weren’t there. We can’t take the book of Genesis literally but we do know that two people on this earth were disobedient. Up till this time I don’t believe we have evidence of human murders (Cain and Abel) who were descendents.

After this time it is entirely possible that other animals were created as well as our domestic ones. Days in Genesis could literally mean thousands or millions of years, and it does say that sea monsters were created but only before Adam and Eve.

To me, evolution aside (and I don’t mean to say I don’t believe in evolution) you must remember too according to viruses and sicknesses that were supposedly created before Adam and Eve—if you look at the Bible (and maybe fossils too) you will see that many of them didn’t succumb to viruses----they lived to be in their hundreds or more, so to me that means sin caused death, but so the human race could be propagated humans didn’t necessarily succumb to these illnesses until a certain time had passed.