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

[Sair]

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

Hardly - it was a fair comment upon the purport of your response.

Omnipotence presupposes omniscience.

Both are attributed to the God of Classical Theism, which appears to leave him without excuse for creating a world with such obvious (from the point of view of his human inventors) flaws!

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

That has little to do with the question I posed - for starters, I do not believe we are genuinely independent in the sense of being unaffected by circumstances external to our minds; secondly, it does not address the question of why it is more valuable for humans to have genuine independence than to have general well-being.

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

They certainly could, if an omnipotent god had made it so. If it’s perfectly possible for some, why not for all, under the auspices of a perfect creator?

How could limits be established?

That is not a response to my question either - which was, “What is the value of being able to freely choose to harm our fellows?” If you meant to ask, “How could we discern harm?”, then I would have thought it quite obvious - objectively obvious, even.

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

Not at all - only that when we perceive that things are going wrong, or we feel like we have lost control of our lives, or just that things are going badly, that seems to be the time when we feel compelled to turn to an imaginary higher power. One does not need to achieve moral perfection to feel that one is generally functional.

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

Yet that is what believers in free will do assume! That they know how and why and to what extent we have free will - and they tend to take violent umbrage at any suggestion that we might not be as free as we imagine.

No response!

Which seemed entirely fair, given the persistent lack of response to the question, posed by myself and many others, of why a perfect god should design a less-than-perfect world which guarantees the unavoidable suffering of sentient beings.

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

Does this not describe miracles also?

 

[Sair]

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

Why?

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

None at all - I merely suggested that it might be so…but again, there’s no reason to suppose it is. The supposition of a designer provides a reason to suppose that we either live in the best of all possible worlds, or that the designer was, at best, incompetent or at worst, malevolent.

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.

Whether it is inadequate or insignificant is kind of beside the point, since it is our one and only option. As far as discerning truth is concerned, we can only go on the evidence - if the things over which we have no control (such as the laws of physics) turn out to be contrary to what we thought was the case, then our choices would appear to be to persist in error or accept that we were wrong and adjust our assumptions accordingly. The main problem this presents for belief in the God of Classical Theism is that, as Sam Harris eloquently pointed out, when things go well for us, religionists would have us believe that this is because God acted on our behalf and is benevolent and interested in our affairs; when things go badly - for example, when millions of children die in abject poverty, or when natural disasters result in death and displacement for hundreds of thousands, or when terrorists are allowed to carry out their murderous intentions on largely innocent civilians, we are told that God’s ways are ‘mysterious’. Religionists can’t have it both ways - either God intends the harm as well as the good, or we just have no idea what God is about.

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.

Yet we, as demonstrably physical beings, do all of these things. Given this, the options would appear to be either a) that somehow, physical processes (theoretically accessible to scientific investigation) have led to the phenomena of consciousness and what we consider to be moral agenthood; or b) that there is some hitherto undiscerned, undefined extra aspect to ourselves that leads to consciousness and free will. It seems premature to assume that these phenomena are necessarily supernatural, when the scientific study of consciousness is still very much in its infancy.

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.

Again, the natural is what we experience and can study - the supernatural is necessarily beyond the scope of investigation, by the very admission of believers. Why pin our hopes on something we can never hope to understand? Do you really think it more likely that our moral values will be in error if they are based upon the physical reality that we inhabit than if they are based upon supernatural phenomena we can only imagine?

 

[tonyrey]

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

The success of science is not fortuitous but due to insight.

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

None at all - I merely suggested that it might be so…

Why?

The supposition of a designer provides a reason to suppose that we either live in the best of all possible worlds, or that the designer was, at best, incompetent or at worst, malevolent.

The best of all possible physical worlds in which there are sentient beings and autonomous persons.

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.

Whether it is inadequate or insignificant is kind of beside the point, since it is our one and only option. As far as discerning truth is concerned, we can only go on the evidence - if the things over which we have no control (such as the laws of physics) turn out to be contrary to what we thought was the case, then our choices would appear to be to persist in error or accept that we were wrong and adjust our assumptions accordingly. The main problem this presents for belief in the God of Classical Theism is that, as Sam Harris eloquently pointed out, when things go well for us, religionists would have us believe that this is because God acted on our behalf and is benevolent and interested in our affairs; when things go badly - for example, when millions of children die in abject poverty, or when natural disasters result in death and displacement for hundreds of thousands, or when terrorists are allowed to carry out their murderous intentions on largely innocent civilians, we are told that God’s ways are ‘mysterious’. Religionists can’t have it both ways - either God intends the harm as well as the good, or we just have no idea what God is about.

Human beings are responsible for the deaths of those who die in abject poverty. The natural causes which are essential for life are responsible for natural disasters. Materialists cannot have it both ways - unless of course they explain how the drawbacks of life in a physical universe could be prevented or eliminated.

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.

Yet we, as demonstrably physical beings, do all of these things.

Transform chemical structures into persons!

Given this, the options would appear to be either a) that somehow, physical processes (theoretically accessible to scientific investigation) have led to the phenomena of consciousness and what we consider to be moral agenthood; or b) that there is some hitherto undiscerned, undefined extra aspect to ourselves that leads to consciousness and free will. It seems premature to assume that these phenomena are necessarily supernatural, when the scientific study of consciousness is still very much in its infancy.

Faith in science presupposes faith in the power of reason!

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.

Again, the natural is what we experience and can study - the supernatural is necessarily beyond the scope of investigation, by the very admission of believers.

The supernatural includes what we experience and study within ourselves. To externalise everything is to deprive everything of its purpose, value and significance.
Our inner world is far more important than external events. We can be healthy and wealthy but misery, failure and despair await us if we are not wise!

Why pin our hopes on something we can never hope to understand?

Do we have no understanding of our mind?

Do you really think it more likely that our moral values will be in error if they are based upon the physical reality that we inhabit than if they are based upon supernatural phenomena we can only imagine?

Our moral values will certainly be in error if they are based solely on external reality rather than on our personal desires, emotions, values, goals, principles and ideals - and those of others.

 

[BobCatholic]

Because God wants us to suffer. He wants us to be masochists.

 

[Gaber]

Because God wants us to suffer. He wants us to be masochists.

That’s funny! Thanks, you made my day!

 

[tonyrey]

Because God wants us to suffer. He wants us to be masochists.

What gives you that impression?

Masochism = Self-defeating personality disorder - wikipedia

“A sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object.” - Merriam-Webster

 

[Poseidon]

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…

Isn’t it enough to know that it is possible? According to Catholic theology, when you go to heaven you will have a perfect physical body. A physical body that exists in a world without any of the unpleasantness that we’ve talked about in this forum. If you accept that then you have to accept that God could do the same thing on earth. I don’t have to tell you how, because you already accept that it is possible.

 

[tonyrey]

*He implies a pain-free, disease-free, accident-free, conflict-free, disaster-free (and probably death-free) world is **feasible ***

Heaven is not a physical world in which there are natural events which cause accidents, disease, conflict, competition and natural disasters. The body is a glorified body in the spiritual realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

 

[Poseidon]

Heaven is not a physical world in which there are natural events which cause accidents, disease, conflict, competition and natural disasters. The body is a glorified body in the spiritual realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Then I’m assuming that you also reject the story of the Garden of Eden, correct? Because that is also a physical world where there is no pain, suffering, etc. You also are saying that not only did the Garden of Eden never exist, but it couldn’t have ever existed even if God wanted it to, because it’s an impossible situation.

 

[tonyrey]

Heaven is not a physical

That a **physical **paradise is a fantasy is clearly stated in the Catechism:

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…

Yet there was a spiritual paradise on earth:

375 The Church, interpreting** the symbolism of biblical language **in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin**:**** from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.**

 

[shoe]

Isn’t it enough to know that it is possible? According to Catholic theology, when you go to heaven you will have a perfect physical body. A physical body that exists in a world without any of the unpleasantness that we’ve talked about in this forum. If you accept that then you have to accept that God could do the same thing on earth. I don’t have to tell you how, because you already accept that it is possible.

God did give human beings a “perfect physical body” when He created them. God not only created human beings perfect (which is to say that mankind was not created evil), but He also created the universe and everything within the universe perfect; consequently mankind did not initially experience death, disease, corruption, etc., until Adam fell. As St. Paul writes, “by one man sin entered into this world” (Romans 5:12), and ever since that time all mankind has had to live and deal with the consequences that have grown out of that first human act of disobedience.

 

[BobCatholic]

What gives you that impression?

Masochism = Self-defeating personality disorder - wikipedia

“A sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object.” - Merriam-Webster

dictionary.reference.com/browse/masochist

mas·och·ist
  [mas-uh-kist] Show IPA
noun
1.
Psychiatry . a person who has masochism, the condition in which sexual or other gratification depends on one’s suffering physical pain or humiliation.
2.
a person who is gratified by pain, degradation, etc., that is self-imposed or imposed by others.
3.
a person who finds pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc.

Yup. This is definitely what God expects from us. He wants us to be masochists.

 

[tonyrey]

dictionary.reference.com/browse/masochist

mas·och·ist
  [mas-uh-kist] Show IPA
noun
1.
Psychiatry . a person who has masochism, the condition in which sexual or other gratification depends on one’s suffering physical pain or humiliation.
2.
a person who is gratified by pain, degradation, etc., that is self-imposed or imposed by others.
3.
a person who finds pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc.

Yup. This is definitely what God expects from us. He wants us to be masochists.

 

[Sair]

God did give human beings a “perfect physical body” when He created them. God not only created human beings perfect (which is to say that mankind was not created evil), but He also created the universe and everything within the universe perfect; consequently mankind did not initially experience death, disease, corruption, etc., until Adam fell. As St. Paul writes, “by one man sin entered into this world” (Romans 5:12), and ever since that time all mankind has had to live and deal with the consequences that have grown out of that first human act of disobedience.

And here, in a nutshell, is why it is not the province of unbelievers to justify the creative capabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. It’s one thing to blame something as petty, in relative terms, as human disobedience to God’s instructions for all the suffering that obtains in the world we inhabit (even that of innocent animals); but it’s quite another to claim that a being with all the attributes of the God of Classical Theism could not have created the world without such a flaw - and if he could not, then he ought to have made better provision for the necessary failures he must have foreseen. As Christopher Hitchens eloquently explained, God had at least 98,000 years to intervene in human history - why did he wait until the last 2,000 to send a saviour, and then to what was a relatively backward part of the world (in terms of the advancement of civilisation and scholarship), a place which is now ravaged by warring religious factions, while secular nations enjoy (relatively speaking, at least) a remarkable degree of peace and prosperity?

 

[Sair]

That a **physical **paradise is a fantasy is clearly stated in the Catechism:

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…

Yet there was a spiritual paradise on earth:

375 The Church, interpreting** the symbolism of biblical language **in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin**:**** from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.**

That’s some spin-doctoring they’ve got going on there. What does a “state of holiness and justice” entail that is not possible in a physical universe created by a perfect god? What, precisely, is it about spiritual existence (whatever that is) that makes it possible to achieve a perfection that is lost to physical existence? Why did God even bother with physical existence, if that is the case? It seems that he was quite capable of creating angels, although if one believes biblical accounts, even they - presumably pure spirit - were not perfect creations.

Just to add, in case anyone is in doubt - I ask this in a state of utter incredulity at the notion of disembodied “spirituality”, or the possibility of a “perfect” existence. It just seems to me highly disingenuous to take the atheist’s question - “Why isn’t the world perfect, if it was created by a perfect god?” - as an excuse for believers to evade the question…by no less a tactic than trying to deflect onto nonbelievers the responsibility for justifying the characteristics of a god in whom we have no belief! We didn’t invent the notion of God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. If the world is no different, in reality, than it would have been without the existence of such a being, why bother believing? Why not seek beauty and wonder - and challenge and hardship - where they are to be found, rather than inventing reasons to look beyond the world we experience?

 

[tonyrey]

God did give human beings a “perfect physical body” when He created them. God not only created human beings perfect (which is to say that mankind was not created evil), but He also created the universe and everything within the universe perfect; consequently mankind did not initially experience death, disease, corruption, etc., until Adam fell. As St. Paul writes, “by one man sin entered into this world” (Romans 5:12), and ever since that time all mankind has had to live and deal with the consequences that have grown out of that first human act of disobedience.

It is the province of unbelievers to justify the creative capabilities of the omnipotent dirt under our feet!

It’s one thing to blame something as petty, in relative terms, as human disobedience to God’s instructions for all the suffering that obtains in the world we inhabit (even that of innocent animals)…

That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church:

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…

Evil is the antithesis of pettiness. It is responsible for all the suffering (even that of innocent animals) caused by human beings with their bloodstained history of pride, selfishness, greed, cruelty and lust for power which have polluted the planet, made species extinct, destroyed the beauty of nature, maimed and killed billions of persons and animals alike.

… but it’s quite another to claim that a being with all the attributes of the God of Classical Theism could not have created the world without such a flaw…

God could have created a flawless world but it would lack the advantages of this world. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing. There are no free lunches in reality!
.

…and if he could not, then he ought to have made better provision for the necessary failures he must have foreseen. As Christopher Hitchens eloquently explained, God had at least 98,000 years to intervene in human history…

Human notions of economy are irrelevant to the nature of reality. Instant coffee, instant photos and instant redemption?

… why did he wait until the last 2,000 to send a saviour…

Why did He send a saviour at all? If you were God I wonder what you would (or would not) have done?

…and then to what was a relatively backward part of the world (in terms of the advancement of civilisation and scholarship)

Intellectual snobbery and elitism are making their ignoble appearance. That is precisely one of the reasons why there are backward parts of the world.

…a place which is now ravaged by warring religious factions.

As if nonreligious places are immune from warring nonreligious factions!

…while secular nations enjoy (relatively speaking, at least) a remarkable degree of peace and prosperity?

And the highest number of abortions, mental disorders, divorces and suicides.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s some spin-doctoring they’ve got going on there.

Ad hominem.

What does a “state of holiness and justice” entail that is not possible in a physical universe created by a perfect god?

The absence of all the suffering (even that of innocent animals) caused by human beings with their bloodstained history of pride, selfishness, greed, cruelty and lust for power which have polluted the planet, made various species extinct, destroyed the beauty of nature, maimed and killed billions of persons and animals alike.

What, precisely, is it about spiritual existence (whatever that is) that makes it possible to achieve a perfection that is lost to physical existence?

Moral integrity and unselfish love.

Why did God even bother with physical existence, if that is the case?

Are you denying the value of the physical existence on which you pin all your hopes - presumably not regretting you were born?

It seems that he was quite capable of creating angels, although if one believes biblical accounts, even they - presumably pure spirit - were not perfect creations.

Since only God is perfect in every respect they were relatively perfect but some chose to reject their Creator and live solely for themselves - like many people on this planet…

Just to add, in case anyone is in doubt - I ask this in a state of utter incredulity at the notion of disembodied “spirituality”, or the possibility of a “perfect” existence.

That state reveals how deeply entrenched you are in the closed system of material objects, how highly you elevate your body at the expense of spiritual values and how completely you neglect the reality of goodness, freedom, justice and pure love.

It just seems to me highly disingenuous to take the atheist’s question - “Why isn’t the world perfect, if it was created by a perfect god?” - as an excuse for believers to evade the question…by no less a tactic than trying to deflect onto nonbelievers the responsibility for justifying the characteristics of a god in whom we have no belief!

It is highly disingenuous to evade the question of how a finite world could be **perfect **and to deflect on believers the responsibility for justifying that gratuitous assumption.

We didn’t invent the notion of God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Yet you claim to understand the full scope of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

If the world is no different, in reality, than it would have been without the existence of such a being, why bother believing?

You are assuming it is no different. How would you justify that assumption?

Why not seek - where they are to be found, rather than inventing reasons to look beyond the world we experience?

Beauty, wonder, challenge and hardship are certainly not to be found in a literally soul-destroying system inhabited by robots programmed by purposeless events to the last blink of an eyelid, restricted to what they can detect with their eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, predictable in principle to the minutest detail and devoid of the slightest objective value or purpose… As King Lear said:

“O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.”

And Hamlet:

“There are more things in heaven and earth …than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

I would add “far” to “more”…

 

[Sair]

Ad hominem.

Again, no - I merely speak as I find.

The absence of all the suffering (even that of innocent animals) caused by human beings with their bloodstained history of pride, selfishness, greed, cruelty and lust for power which have polluted the planet, made various species extinct, destroyed the beauty of nature, maimed and killed billions of persons and animals alike.

These are the very things you claim are impossible for your god, since he chose to create a physical world!

Moral integrity and unselfish love.

Yet we see these exampled by unbelievers, and unexampled by believers. What’s going on there? Upon what basis do you claim that such attributes are spiritual rather than physical in origin? Are you an ultimate authority on the capacities of physical beings, such that you must claim a level “higher” than the physical in order to account for altruism, discipline and devotion?

Are you denying the value of the physical existence on which you pin all your hopes - presumably not regretting you were born?

How you can have read anything I’ve written thus far and reach this conclusion is difficult for me to comprehend. I am not the one denying the value of physical existence - by contrast, you seem to be claiming that anything worth wanting must be nonphysical.

Since only God is perfect in every respect they were relatively perfect but some chose to reject their Creator and live solely for themselves - like many people on this planet…

A perfect creator is capable of creating perfection, else is an imperfect creator.

That state reveals how deeply entrenched you are in the closed system of material objects, how highly you elevate your body at the expense of spiritual values and how completely you neglect the reality of goodness, freedom, justice and pure love.

Nothing of the kind. I fail to see how goodness, freedom, justice and love can have any meaning whatsoever absent their physical realisation. Without that, they are mere fantasy.

It is highly disingenuous to evade the question of how a finite world could be **perfect **and to deflect on believers the responsibility for justifying that gratuitous assumption.

To spell it out once again - perfection is something believers claim to be possible, and claim to have a monopoly on defining. Because they claim their god is perfect, and originally created the world in a state of perfection, which humans compromised through disobedience. The entire exercise of justifying the apparent lack of (anthropocentric notions of) perfection in the world - as evidenced by the degree of suffering, the exercise of malice aforethought, for example - appears to be one of deflecting responsibility from the god who is claimed to have created all of this, in full knowledge of how it would all turn out. I will say - again - that this lack of human-conceived perfection is a matter of course for those of us who do not believe in a personal, interested and interventionist god. Ideals of love and altruism, for example, are things that we work towards - not things we foolishly cast off at a time when we had them free to hand. The questioning of nonbelievers is directed at the painfully obvious doublethink exercised by believers (and by me, when I was a believer) in their insistence that the omniscient, omnipotent creator god had excuses for creating a less than perfect - by believers’ standards - creation.

Yet you claim to understand the full scope of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

I merely take the actual meaning of these words - without trying to fudge them to fit observed reality.

You are assuming it is no different. How would you justify that assumption?

You are declaring that it is no different! That everything is exactly as we should expect a physical world to be, because the nature of physicality constrains the very nonphysical god who is claimed to have invented it.

Beauty, wonder, challenge and hardship are certainly not to be found in a literally soul-destroying system inhabited by robots programmed by purposeless events to the last blink of an eyelid, restricted to what they can detect with their eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, predictable in principle to the minutest detail and devoid of the slightest objective value or purpose…

Yet we are suffused with subjective value and purpose. Why is that not enough?

“There are more things in heaven and earth …than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

I would add “far” to “more”…

Such an admonition may with at least equal justice be applied to the perspective of those who consider certain aspects of our experience to be impossible under the auspices of physical reality, only because they can’t imagine how they could be so.

 

[TheFollower]

God did NOT add evil in the world.

It was when man SINNED that evil entered the world.

God Bless.

 

[tonyrey]

God did NOT add evil in the world.

It was when man SINNED that evil entered the world.

God Bless.

Welcome to the forum!
Moral evil entered the world but natural evil has always existed in the world:

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.