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

[tonyrey]

I have no privileged insight. Privileged means you think you can’t have something someone else has. I have stated repeatedly that what I see is something you can expereince for yourself. In fact, without it you could not see your persitence in claiming that you believe I have a privileged insight! Pure awareness as such has not privilege, it is a condition of seeing what supports the discursive mind you use to make your asseritions I have an alleged privelege that you don’t wish to share. Your not wanting to doesn’t constitute a privelege on my part. It constitutes lack of interest on your part. That makes my persistence inconvenient for your insitence on limiting anything “useful” or “philosophical” to a low order logic.

Can you explain the nature of this “pure awareness?” And how it is attained?

And we have not drifted off topic, because the basic question still comes down to “What is God and can God ‘permit’ in the sense we think of such things.” I’m simply contending that if anyone asking such a question understood the nature of their own mind, such a question would be semantically impossible. You simply refuse that my premise is admissable. I say that until it is understood, the question as stated is anthropomorphizing God. So if you don’t have a handle on your discursive mind from beyond it, where is your argument? Too limited in scope to be other than an anthropomorphizarion. Go back and read my posts and tell me if there is an inconsistency in my line of contention about this.

Can you give examples of philosophical questions which are not “semantically impossible”?

 

[Gaber]

Can you explain the nature of this “pure awareness?” And how it is attained?

No, it is not amenable to intellection other than what might point to it. It has to be expereienced. It is NOT “attained.” It always already IS, but because the personal attention is on the contents of awareness, the contents is mistaken for self. Consciousness as such is indiscernable as an object within intellect, as intellect is contained “within” it as a property of its expression. But intellect is lit by Consciousness, wherfore we have in some systems the symbology of the Sun as God and the Moon as mind. To the rational intellect pure awarenss appears blank, empty, and yet is infinitly full as potiential. We can easily look at the Moon, and even see well enough by its light if it is “full.” But to look directly at the Sun is to be blinded and see nothing, while seeing what is the Source of All, and yet, we see all that we do because of the “Sun/Son.” This is experiencable.

Can you give examples of philosophical questions which are not “semantically impossible”?

Yes. "What am “I” “What is the Source of my awareness?” “From where do thoughts areise, and whither do they go?” “How do I know myself?” “Am “I” this?” “What never changes, ever?” Those are “direct” forms. There are indirect forms which can get the same results,

Remember, in English, the only form of the verb “to be” that is true to fact is the first person singular present tense.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain the nature of this “pure awareness?” And how it is attained?

Who has experienced it?

Can you give examples of philosophical questions which are not “semantically impossible”?

Yes. "What am “I” “What is the Source of my awareness?” “From where do thoughts areise, and whither do they go?” “How do I know myself?” “Am “I” this?” “What never changes, ever?” Those are “direct” forms. There are indirect forms which can get the same results,

Remember, in English, the only form of the verb “to be” that is true to fact is the first person singular present tense.

Do you mean you’re a solipsist?

 

[FaithBuild18]

I don’t think carnivory or parasitism are bad things. Carnivory is pretty freakin’ awesome in my opinion and I’m glad God created it.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think carnivory or parasitism are bad things. Carnivory is pretty freakin’ awesome in my opinion and I’m glad God created it.

:thumbsup:We are all parasites because we all depend on other forms of life to survive!

 

[Poseidon]

I don’t think carnivory or parasitism are bad things. Carnivory is pretty freakin’ awesome in my opinion and I’m glad God created it.

Something tells me that if a lion was chasing you your opinion might be a little different. You like carnivory when you’re the predator. Try being the prey and see how you like it then.

 

[tonyrey]

Something tells me that if a lion was chasing you your opinion might be a little different. You like carnivory when you’re the predator. Try being the prey and see how you like it then.

Something tells me that if you had been writhing in agony with a fractured spine or limb for several days or weeks you would welcome a merciful release by expert asphyxiation!

 

[Sair]

Something tells me that if you had been writhing in agony with a fractured spine or limb for several days or weeks you would welcome a merciful release by expert asphyxiation!

I suspect that if you were thus immobilised, there are plenty of predators that would not hesitate to eat you alive. As long as you can’t fight back, you don’t present the risk of injury - the avoiding of which is the primary reason for killing or disabling prey before eating it. Not to mention the fact that asphyxiation is generally neither a quick nor a pleasant end, from what we can discern.

 

[Gaber]

Who has experienced it?

That matters not a wit until one expereinces it as self.

Do you mean you’re a solipsist?

No.

 

[Wretched_one]

Why would God design some animals to painfully kill and eat others? Why would he design animals to live inside and on other animals and leech their nutrients until they die slowly and painfully? Why would he create killer viruses and bacteria that cause so much death and pain?

I have a theory: when I am half asleep or perhaps drunk (whose experience I do not have) I do not feel hurt as much as when I am awake. So animals which do not have soul and hence self awareness may not feel hurt as much as we imagine. I have seen animals on Discovery being eaten alive by other animals and they don’t even make a noise even though are well alive. Perhaps because of the reason I just gave.
As far as diseases and parasites and other problems of the world our good old uncle Satan is responsible for all of them. Of course God could have stopped him, but he allowed it because of our own sins.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

When questions like this are asked we always suspect the questioner is not happy with the way the world is. The questioner could have made it better … without “carnivory, parasitism, and disease.” But then God did make it better. He made it without death for those who believe in Him and obey Him. The rest go to hell.

 

[tonyrey]

Something tells me that if you had been writhing in agony with a fractured spine or limb for several days or weeks you would welcome a merciful release by expert asphyxiation!

Even being eaten alive is speedier than writhing in agony with a fractured spine or limb for days or weeks. Pleasantness is an irrelevant criterion when you would give anything to be put out of your misery. Beggars can’t be choosers!

And predation is certainly preferable to being afflicted by “animals which live inside and on other animals and leech their nutrients until they die slowly and painfully”. How you would prefer to die when you’re in constant pain - in a matter of minutes or months (or even years)?

 

[tonyrey]

When questions like this are asked we always suspect the questioner is not happy with the way the world is. The questioner could have made it better … without “carnivory, parasitism, and disease.”

He implies a pain-free, disease-free, accident-free, conflict-free, disaster-free (and probably death-free) world is **feasible **without having given the slightest indication of how such an earthly paradise could be created!

Ignorance is hardly a reliable basis for criticism…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have only read about 1/2 of the entire thread, but I would like to propose an answer to the OP that I did not see put forth in that half and will assume has not been proposed since.

I struggled with this question for quite a long time, and in fact the scope of my incredulity was even broader than yours: why would God make our bodies so vulnerable and prone to injury? Why would God make us to feel pain?

As an unbeliever, I was unable to answer this question satisfactorily. Upon my initial conversion (which was admittedly emotional in nature) the question sank into the background. But in time, as the spiritual high of my newfound faith began to wind down all the old questions began to bubble up in my mind again. However, addressing them through prayer as much as intellectual inquiry, I finally felt like I could make sense of them, including the question you have raised.

The answer I have found is this: one of the greatest elements of love is compassion. How does this answer your question? Because suffering is a necessary precursor to compassion. If everything in our world were perfect, then love, as we know it, could not exist, and even if some form of it were possible, it certainly could not reach the beautiful heights that it does. Some Catholic theology holds that man, as a saint, is higher than the angels. Why is this? Not because he is intellectually superior, but, I believe, precisely because he has suffered. So was God’s love for man made manifest: through his passion and death. Many skeptics scoff at the idea that God would “have to die” for us, never considering that to do so allowed God to enter into our own suffering and thus bring a new dimension into the relationship between Himself and man: sympathy.

So that is my answer: ultimately things like pain, suffering, violence, etc. are ingredients in the perfection of freely-willed love. As the old saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” And, on that comparison, like raw eggs or flour, while they are unappetizing of themselves, when mixed with sugar, milk, butter, etc. (things which are pleasant) they make something delicious. So, while these things may not be necessary in a universe which permits free will, per se, they may indeed be necessary for universe which allows us to truly appreciate beauty and choose love freely.

The angle from which you view the big picture makes all the difference. From a materialistic perspective, the picture is indeed ugly and pointless. But, in light of the promises of Christ, we can rise above the mess and see it as a process of transformation and spiritual growth; the growing pains of our souls. In my view, this world appears to have been created much as a cocoon, where violent changes rend our souls into something greater and infinitely more beautiful.

 

[Gaber]

…

So that is my answer: ultimately the existence of pain, suffering, violence, etc. are ingredients in the perfection of freely-willed love. As the old saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” So, while these things may not be necessary in a universe which permits free will, per se, they may indeed be necessary for universe which allows us to choose love itself freely.

The angle from which you view the big picture makes all the difference. From a materialistic perspective, the picture is indeed ugly and pointless. But, in light of the promises of Christ, we can rise above the mess and see it as a process of transformation and spiritual growth; the growing pains of our souls. In my view, this world appears to have been created much as a cocoon, where violent changes rend our souls into something greater.

I think this is on the right track, though clothed in symbology. But what I always wonder when I see questions of this sort, is this: “Is the problem in Reality, or in the form of the question. it being from a limited understandingdto the nature of sense perceptions and the relative mode (dualistic nature) of ordinary awareness?”

 

[tonyrey]

I have only read about 1/2 of the entire thread, but I would like to propose an answer to the OP that I did not see put forth in that half and will assume has not been proposed since.

I struggled with this question for quite a long time, and in fact the scope of my incredulity was even broader than yours: why would God make our bodies so vulnerable and prone to injury? Why would God make us to feel pain?

As an unbeliever, I was unable to answer this question satisfactorily. Upon my initial conversion (which was admittedly emotional in nature) the question sank into the background. But in time, as the spiritual high of my newfound faith began to wind down all the old questions began to bubble up in my mind again. However, addressing them through prayer as much as intellectual inquiry, I finally felt like I could make sense of them, including the question you have raised.

The answer I have found is this: one of the greatest elements of love is compassion. How does this answer your question? Because suffering is a necessary precursor to compassion. If everything in our world were perfect, then love, as we know it, could not exist, and even if some form of it were possible, it certainly could not reach the beautiful heights that it does. Some Catholic theology holds that man, as a saint, is higher than the angels. Why is this? Not because he is intellectually superior, but, I believe, precisely because he has suffered. So was God’s love for man made manifest: through his passion and death. Many skeptics scoff at the idea that God would “have to die” for us, never considering that to do so allowed God to enter into our own suffering and thus bring a new dimension into the relationship between Himself and man: sympathy.

So that is my answer: ultimately things like pain, suffering, violence, etc. are ingredients in the perfection of freely-willed love. As the old saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” And, on that comparison, like raw eggs or flour, while they are unappetizing of themselves, when mixed with sugar, milk, butter, etc. (things which are pleasant) they make something delicious. So, while these things may not be necessary in a universe which permits free will, per se, they may indeed be necessary for universe which allows us to truly appreciate beauty and choose love freely.

The angle from which you view the big picture makes all the difference. From a materialistic perspective, the picture is indeed ugly and pointless. But, in light of the promises of Christ, we can rise above the mess and see it as a process of transformation and spiritual growth; the growing pains of our souls. In my view, this world appears to have been created much as a cocoon, where violent changes rend our souls into something greater and infinitely more beautiful.

A superb post - which is in accord with the view of John Keats that this world is “a vale of soul-making”, i.e. the main purpose of life is spiritual development.

 

[Sair]

He implies a pain-free, disease-free, accident-free, conflict-free, disaster-free (and probably death-free) world is **feasible **without having given the slightest indication of how such an earthly paradise could be created!

Ignorance is hardly a reliable basis for criticism…

And yet this is, after all, the implication of the Genesis creation narrative accepted by Christianity - whether one takes the story literally or not, the point is that God created perfection, and humans ruined it because they sought forbidden knowledge against God’s wishes…because apparently God had not foreseen the potential for imperfection in human curiosity, maybe? Who knows? God works in mysterious ways, right?

But the entire core of Christian faith - redemption through vicarious atonement - requires something to atone for (which is why fundamentalist Christians cling so tenaciously to their belief that Adam and Eve were actually real individuals) and makes even less sense without the belief not only that God could and did create an initial state of perfection on earth, but also that he is capable of restoring this condition. If not, what is God even for?

Most believers insist that one does not need to know how God operates in order to believe him capable of creation, intervention, emotion, all the things he is supposedly able to do with no effort whatsoever thanks to his omnipotence - yet you insist that nonbelievers have to come up with an explanation for how God could have created a perfect world! I reject your attempt to pass the burden of proof to those not making positive claims. It’s like saying to atheists, “Prove that god doesn’t exist!” Let the believers explain why, if their god is perfection itself, he didn’t do a better job; demonstrate for all of us that this really is the best of all possible worlds.

 

[tonyrey]

He implies a pain-free, disease-free, accident-free, conflict-free, disaster-free (and probably death-free) world is feasible without having given the slightest indication of how such an earthly paradise could be created!

God did not create a perfect physical world because only the Creator is perfect. He knows man will choose evil but He also knows it is a lesser evil than not creating anyone with the capacity for unselfish love which presupposes the power of self-control.

But the entire core of Christian faith - redemption through vicarious atonement - requires something to atone for (which is why fundamentalist Christians cling so tenaciously to their belief that Adam and Eve were actually real individuals) and makes even less sense without the belief not only that God could and did create an initial state of perfection on earth, but also that he is capable of restoring this condition. If not, what is God even for?

Genuine independence implies that we alone are responsible for our decisions and the subsequent consequences of our actions and omissions. There is no reason why God should not help us to liberate ourselves from those consequences if we are prepared to acknowledge the unnecessary suffering we have caused and do our best to make amends. Those who are determined to reject their responsibility for choosing between good and evil and to imagine they alone are the authors of morality will inevitably pay the price for their hubris and egoism.

Most believers insist that one does not need to know how God operates in order to believe him capable of creation, intervention, emotion, all the things he is supposedly able to do with no effort whatsoever thanks to his omnipotence - yet you insist that nonbelievers have to come up with an explanation for how God could have created a perfect world! I reject your attempt to pass the burden of proof to those not making positive claims. It’s like saying to atheists, “Prove that god doesn’t exist!” Let the believers explain why, if their god is perfection itself, he didn’t do a better job; demonstrate for all of us that this really is the best of all possible worlds.

Let the unbelievers explain why there is a difference between good and evil in a Godless universe, how they have acquired their power to think for themselves and assume they know this is not the best of all possible worlds but simply a purposeless, valueless accident which has inexplicably occurred for no reason whatsoever yet has magically endowed them with the power of reason and enabled them to understand that they exist for no reason whatsoever…

 

[Sair]

God did not create a perfect physical world because only the Creator is perfect. He knows man will choose evil but He also knows it is a lesser evil than not creating anyone with the capacity for unselfish love which presupposes the power of self-control.

Welcome to Evasion and Derailment 101, folks. For a start, there is no answer here to the charge that the creation narrative accepted by Christians very strongly implies (or states, if one takes it literally) that God is at least capable of perfect creation - he saw that it was good, no less - if a perfect creator sees goodness, that implies that it meets his standard. Yet there is also the implication that God was rather unprepared and thus offended by the defection of his creations…all very understandable in the context of a god-character invented by humans, no?

And I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to the question of why the free will of a murderer, torturer or rapist must, in moral terms, trump the well-being of the victims of any of these. If God can - and demonstrably has, if one believes in divine creation - created those of us who, for all intents and purposes, freely choose to consider the well-being of others, why couldn’t he have made every human thus? What is the value of being able to freely choose to harm our fellows?

Genuine independence implies that we alone are responsible for our decisions and the subsequent consequences of our actions and omissions. There is no reason why God should not help us to liberate ourselves from those consequences if we are prepared to acknowledge the unnecessary suffering we have caused and do our best to make amends. Those who are determined to reject their responsibility for choosing between good and evil and to imagine they alone are the authors of morality will inevitably pay the price for their hubris and egoism.

Have you noticed the statistics for religious belief in prisons? The implication is that when one has hit rock-bottom in terms of subsisting in a human community, one must choose to give one’s life over to God, since one obviously cannot assume any measure of self-control without divine assistance. The same implication is borne by the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, by the way - one turns one’s life over to a higher power, precisely because one is incapable of controlling themselves. It seems rather twisted - and perhaps even arrogant - on the part of God to create beings who feel like we have free will, but then, when we realise we actually don’t have it, or at least as much of it as we imagine, and can’t control it, we have to submit to the power and rule of God to manage our lives.

Let the unbelievers explain why there is a difference between good and evil in a Godless universe, how they have acquired their power to think for themselves and assume they know this is not the best of all possible worlds but simply a purposeless, valueless accident which has inexplicably occurred for no reason whatsoever yet has magically endowed them with the power of reason and enabled them to understand that they exist for no reason whatsoever…

Magic implies an instantaneous conversion from one state to another - like a religious conversion, perhaps, such as that of Paul of Tarsus. No naturalist holds that intelligence and the ability to comprehend - and thus the ability to exercise a degree of control over - the world happened overnight. Obviously, if you reject the idea that the natural history of our world provides sufficient time and opportunity for the gradual evolution of intelligent creatures with a measure of self-control (and the relatively significant if still limited freedom that implies), then you have to turn to supernatural, magical explanations for why we consider ourselves to be responsible agents (up to a point) and then weigh up and somehow justify the accompanying circumstances from the point of view of your posited deity, who, traditionally, has been endowed with the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

As I have said - on several occasions now - the problem of evil, as such, and the dilemma posed for believers just by the obvious levels of suffering in the world (even those uninitiated by God-created “free” agents) is absolutely not a problem, philosophically speaking, for those who do not invest belief in a personal god - it is, of course, a practical problem, but it is entirely explicable in the context of a natural, evolved world. Indeed, this may well be the best of all possible naturally evolved worlds - but that is quite a different claim to the one that insists this is the best of all possible designed worlds. Of course, you may say - as you’ve done before - that considering suffering from a human perspective is anthropocentric, but it would be difficult to imagine a more human construct than the God of Classical Theism. Of course we have to consider things from a human perspective, since we have no other, practically speaking. And at the end of the day, purpose is of the same stripe - a human invention. We create our own purposes, in the context of our existence; we also create our own moral landscape, based upon what is naturally involved in human well-being.

 

[tonyrey]

Welcome to Evasion and Derailment 101, folks.

An argumentum ad hominem, a petitio principii and a breach of courtesy.

For a start, there is no answer here to the charge that the creation narrative accepted by Christians very strongly implies (or states, if one takes it literally) that God is at least capable of perfect creation…

Good <> perfect

Yet there is also the implication that God was rather unprepared and thus offended by the defection of his creations…

Omnipotence presupposes omniscience.

And I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to the question of why the free will of a murderer, torturer or rapist must, in moral terms, trump the well-being of the victims of any of these.

How can a genuinely independent person be compelled to consider others?

If God can - and demonstrably has, if one believes in divine creation - created those of us who, for all intents and purposes, freely choose to consider the well-being of others, why couldn’t he have made every human thus?

You assume **all **individuals could respect the well-being of all other persons **always and everywhere! **

What is the value of being able to freely choose to harm our fellows?

How could limits be established?

Have you noticed the statistics for religious belief in prisons?

Irrelevant.

The implication is that when one has hit rock-bottom in terms of subsisting in a human community, one must choose to give one’s life over to God, since one obviously cannot assume any measure of self-control without divine assistance…

Those objections implythe power to achieve self-control and moral perfection **entirely by oneself **as if one were a demi-god!

It seems rather twisted - and perhaps even arrogant - on the part of God to create beings who feel like we have free will, but then, when we realise we actually don’t have it, or at least as much of it as we imagine, and can’t control it, we have to submit to the power and rule of God to manage our lives.

It is twisted and arrogant for a person to assume privileged insight into the extent or lack of free will.

Let the unbelievers explain why there is a difference between good and evil in a Godless universe…

No response!

…how they have acquired their power to think for themselves and assume they know this is not the best of all possible worlds…

No response!
…

but simply a purposeless, valueless accident which has inexplicably occurred for no reason whatsoever… and enabled them to understand that they exist for no reason whatsoever…

No response!

Magic implies an instantaneous conversion from one state to another - like a religious conversion, perhaps, such as that of Paul of Tarsus.

Magic implies a contravention of the laws of science regardless of the time factor.

No naturalist holds that intelligence and the ability to comprehend - and thus the ability to exercise a degree of control over - the world happened overnight.

The time factor is irrelevant.

Obviously, if you reject the idea that the natural history of our world provides sufficient time and opportunity for the gradual evolution of intelligent creatures with a measure of self-control (and the relatively significant if still limited freedom that implies)…

Chance + Time do not entail omnipotence!

The problem of evil, as such, and the dilemma posed for believers just by the obvious levels of suffering in the world (even those uninitiated by God-created “free” agents) is absolutely not a problem, philosophically speaking, for those who do not invest belief in a personal god - it is, of course, a practical problem, but it is entirely explicable in the context of a natural, evolved world.

The natural world is more rationally seen as **designed **to exist rather than being the **fortuitous **outcome of blind processes.

Indeed, this may well be the best of all possible naturally evolved worlds…

If it were not designed there is no reason why it should be the best…

Of course, you may say - as you’ve done before - that considering suffering from a human perspective is anthropocentric, but it would be difficult to imagine a more human construct than the God of Classical Theism. Of course we have to consider things from a human perspective, since we have no other, practically speaking.

If the human perspective is an inadequate guide or basis for interpreting reality it is illogical to consider reality from that perspective and be convinced it is true. It is absurd to rely on human reasoning if it is insignificant.

We create our own purposes, in the context of our existence…

The fatal flaw in materialism is that there is not one jot of evidence that an inanimate object can succeed in acting purposefully - the monopoly of living organisms - let alone create its own purposes! Two enormous leaps have occurred from the lowest mode of existence and are based solely on a sheer act of faith by the materialist in the power of time and chance to transform chemical structures into persons capable of astonishing feats of insight, self-control and control of their environment.

.

… we also create our own moral landscape, based upon what is naturally involved in human well-being.

To create our own moral landscape implies that we have the power to do so without a word of explanation as to how that feat is achieved. It also implies that the materialist’s moral values correspond infallibly to reality and takes for granted without any justification whatsoever that human well-being is “natural”, i.e. restricted entirely to physical behaviour.