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

[PRmerger]

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

How does one “condemn” a belief? Isn’t the word that you want to use “reject”, rather than “condemn”?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

An inspiring post, Kathryn! :clapping:

I thank you kindly, tonyrey:knight1:! A safe and happy holiday weekend to you and to all here.
:thankyou::heaven::harp::hug1:
Kathryn Ann:angel1::getholy:

 

[tonyrey]

I thank you kindly, tonyrey:knight1:! A safe and happy holiday weekend to you and to all here.
:thankyou::heaven::harp::hug1:
Kathryn Ann:angel1::getholy:

I appreciate your depiction of a knight in armour, Kathryn, because even though I’m an idealist like Don Quijote (but I hope not so misguided) I’m also a half-Irish, half-English republican opposed to the monarchy, aristocracy and titles of any description and I have infinitely more respect for St Anthony than Sir Anthony!

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

In principle, anything that impacts upon our experience is open to empirical investigation

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

Some would claim that all these millions of years of evolution were somehow necessary to bring about the existence of humans, but one can’t help wondering whether it was worth it; "

Good morning, Sair,

I wanted to quote the entirety of your text, but here hope that I can address what I believe is the heart of your questions.

To me, science, nature, all of creation are merely God’s handmaidens. As I mentioned in another thread, these are under His guidance but do not define Him.

At the very heart of my belief is this; God, who is the Master of all intelligence and compassion, knows that if only animals and plants, flora and fauna, etc, (No humans) were the limits on this earthly life, there would be that final question, that final leap untaken.

The question: “what if there were beings who could look back at their Creator and choose whether or not to walk with Him in faith?” would go unanswered for all time. God in His ultimate fullness took that leap, as it were. The Fall of Adam and Eve speaks to our choice to rebel. Whether you take the Garden of Eden to be a literal place or not, we can speak of the human quality found in us all to rebel against authority. (Children certainly prove this point even with the most loving and well intentioned parents!)

I like your honest question about whether or not it was all worth it.

I know a young police office who is a father of two young sons. He is struggling with this question because he sees evil every day. I wrote to him one day and said “Not only is it all worth it, but each time you and others like you choose the joy of parenthood (and also all the challenges) you are stating your heartfelt agreement that it must indeed be worth it.” He, as a father, seeing all the evil in the world could have chosen not to father a child at all. Certainly, he might have chosen not to have a second son, but he did. It may not have been a completely intellectual decision! And neither is God limited to pure reason, but defines Himself by love, power, intelligence, etc.

If you read the Old Testament book of Job, you see that Job also asks many questions of God. The answer should please us if we look very closely at how God chose to reply:

“Where were you when I created” all the heavens, the Leviathan," etc, etc… You can see in this reply exactly my point above: That God could have stopped with all the other creatures, but the very fact that God took that leap and gave Job his God- given right to question things provides a great irony! Had God left the earth without humans to question Him, He would literally not have to deal with our questions! It’s a marvelous thing to look at this closely. Where was Job (and where were we all?) at that critical moment before humans were created? In the Divine, loving mind and heart of God!

Part of the Catholic faith, as you may know, is that of Eucharistic Adoration, being totally receptive at times before the mystery of The Blessed Sacrament.

Finally, may I say that in my own journey to the Catholic faith, (years of being a "protestant who knew NOT what exactly I was protesting!)- I came finally to understand things. That word is key: There is an Egyptian hieroglyphic for that very word. The picture actually shows one man STANDING UNDER another, in order to reverence that which he does not yet grasp!

So, when I was outside of the Church, I could not grasp what I so wanted to embrace. Not until I humbled myself and for a year studied in the R.C.I.A. (the ancient "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) did I truly stand under the Church’s teachings and then come to fully understand! When one is within/under, surrounded by light, is it not a truly different experience than being outside looking in? How joyous to begin to sense the mystery of it all. I need not understand every single tenet of the Church, but I must come to understand the Divine Intent and the compassion behind everything in life.

I hope this explains my beliefs. When faced with the ultimate question from each of us, (from Job in the Old Testament) God is not flippant when answering “Where were you when I” created everything in the world?" I understand now what that key scripture means. Job’s very questions would never have come about if, in that moment before the great leap, God decided not to create beings who could question Him at all.

God felt it was worth it to go forward, loving us beyond and despite some of our (sometimes) impertinent questions. I believe it was all worth it too. As a mother and grand-mother now, I can honestly say that although I might not want to repeat all the sad events I’ve witnessed, I would not trade my life and family for anything. It is worth it. It is all well worth the battles won and the battles lost. It’s the Divine intent of compassion that is behind the free will that allows us to question things.

The difference between those without faith and those with faith is that faith means stepping under the light of Divine Intent and allowing ourselves to succumb to a love that far outweighs all doubt. There is no experience like that of realizing that Christ Himself came to earth to save us from ourselves, and to count it all worthwhile to raise us to Himself in the greatest love the world has ever known.

May your day be very blessed.:heaven:
Kathryn Ann

 

[tonyrey]

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

“misguided” generally refers to a person rather than a belief.

Not all empirical evidence is scientific.

Such as?

Personal experience. Have you read Thomas Nagel’s short online article “What is it like to be a bat?”?

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

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

Would you choose a lover or a friend on the basis of scientific facts? If not why not?

The reduction of persons to animals diminishes both the power and also the significance of truth, freedom, justice, love, compassion and courage.

In what respect? We still experience states of affairs that correspond to our conceptions of truth, freedom, justice, love, compassion and courage, even if these are not the reified, independent entities they have been romantically imagined to be.

Concepts that only exist in the mind are illusions!

Considering the value you place on truth, I wonder at the fact that you would apparently rather cling to an edifying fantasy than discover what’s really going on in the human psyche.

The unedifying fantasy is the one that reduces ideas, values and emotions to what happens inside the skull.

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

Personal capabilities vanish when one is robot which cannot choose what to think or how to act.

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

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

It eliminates them completely!

You don’t believe other animals are capable of thinking for themselves, yet presumably don’t doubt that they are capable of comfort and contentment and general good health.

If animals thought for themselves they would be treated like human beings.

… If you or I knew that someone intended to beat up their innocent neighbour, and could prevent it without prohibitive cost to ourselves, would we hang back on the basis that to interfere would be inhibiting the free will of the violent-offender-to-be? Or would we value the well-being of the innocent neighbour more highly and step in to prevent them from being harmed? We would interfere, surely, for the sake of preventing harm. If your god has different values to what we would exercise in such a situation, why does anyone bother to worship him?

We would intervene by using physical force. If God did that it would defeat the purpose of creating us as independent beings. Your rejection of Christianity stemmed from your unwillingness to be compelled (in your view) to live as a slave and control your desires.

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

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

Not according to the teaching of Jesus who told us God cares for all His creatures.

The immense value of life (and love) is far more adequately and coherently explained by Design than by random combinations of purposeless particles.Go on, then - explain it, and do be sure to account for how the wanton expenditure of life through predation, disease and natural disasters is part of that intentional design.

Those explanations have been given in great detail on this and other threads where you have failed to refute valid points and answer pertinent questions.

If it is indeed the designer who values life, as opposed to this value being the subjective response of we who are alive, then you must have a good explanation for these highly incongruous design features.

The notion that they are incongruous is based on the myth of a earthly paradise in which there is no conflict, discord, failure or imperfection.

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

Except in the Bible, and every other creation myth ever invented by humans.

Certainly not in the creation myth that dust somehow and entirely by itself succeeded in producing truth, freedom, love, beauty and happiness!

Natural development is, in principle, unnecessary in a designed universe.

Please give an alternative.

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

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

Your question is an excuse for evading the fact that the precise scope of omnipotence cannot be understood unless one is omniscient…

 

[BobCatholic]

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

I blame God for not providing. As He promised.

I do everything right and still can’t find a job. 3 degrees, 2 certifications, 2 certificates, 1 license, 10 years experience in one field, 1 in another 1/2 in a third. Clean driving record. Clean criminal record. Clean credit record. There is NO reason for me to be rejected except that there are no jobs. I even went back to school and got the two certifications recently and a degree to make myself more marketable. It didn’t work.

I just can’t get past the computers who are screening people out.

 

[BobCatholic]

1. Why do you think God has stopped loving you - even for a second?

Only temporally. Spiritually, God still loves me. God loves my soul. He hates my body.

1. Is it because you haven’t suffered enough?

How much am I supposed to suffer? Should I cut myself and bleed to make God happy? Maybe I can send myself to the hospital doing dangerous things to cause myself to suffer more.

1. Is God causing the suffering?

He permits it. And wants me to be a masochist.

1. Do you think God wants you - or anyone else - to suffer?

Yes. Since He does not permit us to be in the Garden of Eden. He punishes us for the Sins of Adam and Eve.

1. Is it because you deserve to suffer?

1. If not why?

I had my sins forgiven. I even did indulgences. Indulgences take away the TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT (pay attention to that!) and I’m still out of work.

This means any of the following:

1. God did not forgive me and refuses to no matter how many times I go to confession. He has rejected and does not want me.
2. Indulgences do NOT remit temporal punishment, and thus the doctrine is false in that area.
3. God is unjust and punishes people for the sins of their ancestors.
4. God does not love me temporally.
5. Jesus didn’t take care of everything with his sacrifice. (Romans 8:23 - we are STILL not redeemed yet!)

I should go to Saudi Arabia and preach the gospel at Mecca and Medina. Muslims will slice my throat for that and I will finally make God happy with me.

 

[davidv]

I blame God for not providing. As He promised.

I do everything right and still can’t find a job. 3 degrees, 2 certifications, 2 certificates, 1 license, 10 years experience in one field, 1 in another 1/2 in a third. Clean driving record. Clean criminal record. Clean credit record. There is NO reason for me to be rejected except that there are no jobs. I even went back to school and got the two certifications recently and a degree to make myself more marketable. It didn’t work.

I just can’t get past the computers who are screening people out.

Why do you think God promise you a job?

 

[Poseidon]

The unedifying fantasy is the one that reduces ideas, values and emotions to what happens inside the skull.

That’s a subjective opinion. Personally I find science more edifying than intentionally remaining ignorant.

If animals thought for themselves they would be treated like human beings.

So? The point is that they can’t think for themselves, and so they’re not treated like human beings, and thus are all a waste since the only real purpose of God’s creation was to make free-willed creatures.

We would intervene by using physical force. If God did that it would defeat the purpose of creating us as independent beings. Your rejection of Christianity stemmed from your unwillingness to be compelled (in your view) to live as a slave and control your desires.

Ah, good old avoidance and ad hominem attacks. Somehow I’m supposed to just nod my head and accept that if God intervened somehow it would interfere with human free will! Because God can’t use physical force! Um, no. God doesn’t have to go in and start mind controlling the belligerent neighbor. He could go tip off the victim, or lock his doors so the attacker can’t get in, or teleport either one of them to some distant area until the threat is over, or have the victim invite over for a party a large group of police and martial artists, or have the attacker fall asleep, or have the victim on vacation…none of these interfere with anyone’s free will, and all are well within the capabilities of God (which goes without saying, because everything is within the capabilities of God).

And your telling us atheists why we don’t believe in God is not only incorrect (that’s not even close to why I don’t believe) but it’s also offensive. You have no idea what my thought processes that led me to this conclusion were, so don’t try to tell me that you do know. Thank you.

Not according to the teaching of Jesus who told us God cares for all His creatures.
Those explanations have been given in great detail on this and other threads where you have failed to refute valid points and answer pertinent questions.

Would you please direct us to these posts? Thread name and post number please. Because I certainly haven’t seen them. Also, I believe that we have answered your questions, you just refuse to accept our answers. This is the subject I was talking about earlier where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that any god like the Christian one should definitely be able to create a more friendly world than this one. If he can’t then he’s not really omnipotent, is he?

The notion that they are incongruous is based on the myth of a earthly paradise in which there is no conflict, discord, failure or imperfection.

Even if a perfect world is a myth, you have to accept that God could have made this one just a little bit less cruel? Maybe not getting rid of all the bad stuff, but how about a few of the worst diseases - ebola, AIDS, cancer, malaria, and dysentery? And I know you’re going to say that I’m “making piecemeal changes without explaining exactly how to implement them” but let’s stay off that avoidance tactic, since we both know it’s silly, okay?

Certainly not in the creation myth that dust somehow and entirely by itself succeeded in producing truth, freedom, love, beauty and happiness!
Please give an alternative.

Well since we’re talking about a designed universe then how about design? Maybe direct creation? If God wanted to just “pop” an ostrich into existence right next to me he could, since he can create anything, since he’s the creator. If he can do an ostrich he can do the world, because as they say in Matthew 19:26 “With God all things are possible.”

Your question is an excuse for evading the fact that the precise scope of omnipotence cannot be understood unless one is omniscient…

Again, you’re simply asserting here that omnipotence somehow is limited, which is a logical absurdity. Infinity=infinity. Infinity does not equal some limited quantity.

 

[Poseidon]

This means any of the following:

1. God did not forgive me and refuses to no matter how many times I go to confession. He has rejected and does not want me.
2. Indulgences do NOT remit temporal punishment, and thus the doctrine is false in that area.
3. God is unjust and punishes people for the sins of their ancestors.
4. God does not love me temporally.
5. Jesus didn’t take care of everything with his sacrifice. (Romans 8:23 - we are STILL not redeemed yet!)

I should go to Saudi Arabia and preach the gospel at Mecca and Medina. Muslims will slice my throat for that and I will finally make God happy with me.

You seriously need to stop complaining and take ownership of your own life. Stop blaming God for not having a job. Keep looking for a job and You’ll eventually find one. Read the story of Job, and you’ll realize that you don’t actually have any problems. Don’t go try to get yourself killed. That’s stupid. Would God rather see you dead or see you doing something worthwhile with your life? While you’re out of work you have lots of time to do things. Go find some volunteer opportunities and take them. Go work at a soup kitchen or habitat for humanity, or whatever else you can. Do handiwork. Mow lawns. Wash cars. Make a few bucks. Make some friends along the way. Do a good deed every day. Take control of your own life! Stop waiting around for God to make it all better. He’s not going to. Isn’t there a saying, “God helps those who help themselves.”? Well, help yourself, and realize that this bad period is only temporary.

I’ve had depression as well, and I know how difficult it is to think positively while you’re depressed, but you have to force yourself to do it. Make a list of good things in your life - things you’re good at, things you’re thankful for, things you’re blessed to have. Add to it every day. You can also make a list of things you’re bad at, and try to work on those things. Sitting around and cursing God will do nothing for you. Good luck.

 

[Poseidon]

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

We certainly can prove the existence of those things. We see them every day. Isn’t that proof? And I care about the opinions of religious people because I like to learn. I don’t only want to see one side of any opinion - how do you learn from that? Also, I don’t think I’m really missing out on much, because I think that I’ve discovered the truth - that no gods exist. And I’d rather know the truth, even if it might be comforting to believe in a higher power.

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

No animals have murderous intent, but whether they’re killing for food or killing for killing’s sake, the suffering of the victim is unchanged. And as for free will, that could possibly explain why people are evil, but it doesn’t say anything about natural evil, which is what this thread is about - the evils in nature, independent of the evils of humankind.

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

I see where you’re coming from, but appearance of design doesn’t equal design. There are structures in nature that look very non-natural, but are natural just the same (look up lenticular clouds, basalt columns or quartz crystals for examples).

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

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

His grace is there, in His saints, in His Church, all throughout history. Even when wolves in sheep’s clothing give us their worst, God’s compassionate intent remains the one constant in the world. All things that you say are “lousy” point to something that has fallen away from that loving intent due to free will.
Hmm…well it still seems to me that an all-powerful God would have been a bit more successful by now, in bringing his people back. The fact that he’s been unsuccessful says to me that either he’s not trying, he’s not able, or he doesn’t exist. I choose the third.

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

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

I certainly can’t say definitely not, but I don’t see myself becoming a Christian anytime soon. In 30 years? Eh, who can say? I doubt it though.

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

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

I have a sense of good and evil, but that does not mean that I was given it from a divine power. Animals also have some sense of right and wrong - dogs know not to bite their owner, for example. Humans’ sense is essentially the same, just to a much higher degree of refinement.

Kathryn Ann
:heaven:
Thanks for your response! (Sorry I had to delete the last part, it was too long for CAF and I had to shorten it)

 

[BobCatholic]

Why do you think God promise you a job?

How does he expect me to provide for my wife and special needs child FINANCIALLY?

I have an extremely heavy burden but no way to carry it.

I am better off dead than alive.

 

[Poseidon]

How does he expect me to provide for my wife and special needs child FINANCIALLY?

I have an extremely heavy burden but no way to carry it.

I am better off dead than alive.

You certainly won’t be able to provide for them dead.

 

[tonyrey]

The unedifying fantasy is the one that reduces ideas, values and emotions to what happens inside the skull.

A false dilemma! Dennett pointed out that science presupposes philosophy.

If animals thought for themselves they would be treated like human beings.

So? The point is that they can’t think for themselves, and so they’re not treated like human beings, and thus are all a waste since the only real purpose of God’s creation was to make free-willed creatures.

What gave you that absurd idea?

We would intervene by using physical force. If God did that it would defeat the purpose of creating us as independent beings. Your rejection of Christianity stemmed from your unwillingness to be compelled (in your view) to live as a slave and control your desires.

Ah, good old avoidance and ad hominem attacks.

You are unaware that my statement is based on evidence from the person to whom my post is directed.

Somehow I’m supposed to just nod my head and accept that if God intervened somehow it would interfere with human free will!

Not somehow. If you couldn’t do what you want to do you would soon know why.

Because God can’t use physical force! Um, no. God doesn’t have to go in and start mind controlling the belligerent neighbor. He could go tip off the victim, or lock his doors so the attacker can’t get in, or teleport either one of them to some distant area until the threat is over, or have the victim invite over for a party a large group of police and martial artists, or have the attacker fall asleep, or have the victim on vacation…none of these interfere with anyone’s free will, and all are well within the capabilities of God (which goes without saying, because everything is within the capabilities of God).

You need to explain precisely how all these actions are performed and on every occasion that a harmful action is intended…

And your telling us atheists why we don’t believe in God is not only incorrect (that’s not even close to why I don’t believe) but it’s also offensive. You have no idea what my thought processes that led me to this conclusion were, so don’t try to tell me that you do know.

Your allegation is unfounded and false. My remark was addressed solely to the person to whom my post is directed and based on evidence from that person. It is advisable to learn not to jump to irate and illogical conclusions - especially when answering a post directed to another person.

Not according to the teaching of Jesus who told us God cares for all His creatures.

Those explanations have been given in great detail on this and other threads where you have failed to refute valid points and answer pertinent questions.

Would you please direct us to these posts? Thread name and post number please. Because I certainly haven’t seen them. Also, I believe that we have answered your questions, you just refuse to accept our answers. This is the subject I was talking about earlier where we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

You are still barking up the wrong tree! The individual to whom my post is directed has often failed to refute valid points and answer pertinent questions. You are mistakenly applying my statement to everyone - including yourself - who disagrees with me! I hope you will apologise for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and beating me with it… :tsktsk:

I believe that any god like the Christian one should definitely be able to create a more friendly world than this one. If he can’t then he’s not really omnipotent, is he?

You still need to explain the precise mechanisms.

Even if a perfect world is a myth, you have to accept that God could have made this one just a little bit less cruel? Maybe not getting rid of all the bad stuff, but how about a few of the worst diseases - ebola, AIDS, cancer, malaria, and dysentery? And I know you’re going to say that I’m “making piecemeal changes without explaining exactly how to implement them” but let’s stay off that avoidance tactic, since we both know it’s silly, okay?

Silly in your opinion but the cold fact is that you cannot explain how diseases could be avoided in an extremely complex process developing in accordance with the laws of nature. Man’s attempts to improve the world have frequently ended in disaster with pandemics, deformities, the extinction of species and the diseases of civilisation - not to mention the prospect of a nuclear holocaust. So much for the Brave New World ruled by scientists…

Certainly not in the creation myth that dust somehow and entirely by itself succeeded in producing truth, freedom, love, beauty and happiness!

Please give an alternative.

Design.

Well since we’re talking about a designed universe then how about design?

I anticipated you!

Maybe direct creation? If God wanted to just “pop” an ostrich into existence right next to me he could, since he can create anything, since he’s the creator. If he can do an ostrich he can do the world, because as they say in Matthew 19:26 “With God all things are possible.”

Design by evolution.

Your question is an excuse for evading the fact that the precise scope of omnipotence cannot be understood unless one is omniscient…

Again, you’re simply asserting here that omnipotence somehow is limited, which is a logical absurdity. Infinity=infinity. Infinity does not equal some limited quantity.

Non sequitur. When a system is created the designer is constrained by the need for consistency with the purposes for which the system is created. There is no point in establishing the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended. Omnipotence does not mean anarchy!

 

[shoe]

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

The scientists who believe that “Life first appeared about 700 million years ago, and humanity only about 150,000 years ago” are simply basing their opinion on naturalism and, up to a certain point, uniformitarianism. And by their assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism, some scientists automatically seem to assume that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong, which is just begging the question since the main evidence that life first appeared about 700 million years ago and humanity about 150,000 years ago is based on the assumption that they did. And the scientists who deny the Genesis account of creation but accept everything else God has to offer in the Bible is like the person denying the truth of gravity while lying flat on his back as proof positive.

I think that it’s up to the atheists who ask questions such as “Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?” to state on the basis of what standard do they, atheists, use to make a judgment call that says such things as “carnivory, parasitism, and disease” are bad things in the first place? In other words, by what process do atheists use in order to distinguish between what is a good thing and what is a bad thing? If a loved one is eaten by a carnivorous beast or dies from a deadly disease or a deadly parasite, what is to prevent an atheist from telling the grieving family that they don’t have to feel grief because their loved one was just another animal anyway? I believe it is objectively impossible to be able to distinguish consistently between what is good and what is bad in life while at the same time denying the eternal reference point of the absolute standard of truth - God!

 

[Sair]

How does one “condemn” a belief? Isn’t the word that you want to use “reject”, rather than “condemn”?

‘Condemn’ is a much stronger term than ‘reject’ - one certainly can reject any belief on any basis, without necessarily expressing contempt for it. To condemn a belief - to censure or express disapproval of it - implies an additional level of revulsion being expressed, rather than simply saying, “I don’t share your belief.”

 

[Sair]

A false dilemma! Dennett pointed out that science presupposes philosophy.

Philosophy is and always has been about considering the ways in which the world works and how we might discern those ways and function within them. Thus far, its aims are congruent with science. For philosophy, as a discipline, to ignore science and go haring off on metaphysical magical mystery tours seems like an absurd and pointless exercise, if philosophy has mandated science as the most effective means of discerning natural reality (which, until there is evidence of something else, must be presumed to be the only reality).

What gave you that absurd idea?

You did, in point of fact, by declaring that the existence of free-willed creatures with the ability to choose to worship god is the ultimate end of “creation through evolution”.

You are unaware that my statement is based on evidence from the person to whom my post is directed.

I rather suspect that Poseidon is quite capable of reading back through the thread. And it’s quite true that I reject Classical Theism for multiple reasons, but in large part for the same reason Christopher Hitchens rejected it - at their core, all the monotheisms are totalitarian, and although they may preach the value of free will and free thought, they condemn anyone who actually attempts to exercise these faculties.

You need to explain precisely how all these actions are performed and on every occasion that a harmful action is intended…

One would have thought this would be a walk in the park for an omnipotent, omniscient god.

You are still barking up the wrong tree! The individual to whom my post is directed has often failed to refute valid points and answer pertinent questions. You are mistakenly applying my statement to everyone - including yourself - who disagrees with me! I hope you will apologise for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and beating me with it… :tsktsk:

If I have, indeed, failed to address these supposedly “pertinent” questions and “valid” points (where they didn’t represent an attempt at misdirection or a deliberate misunderstanding) then I am hardly alone. I am still noticing a conspicuous absence of explanation for a number of highly pertinent questions from my side, such as how a supernatural being interacts with the natural world in the first place, and why a god for whom all things are possible chose to create a world in which the suffering of sentient beings was inevitable. Is your god really such a sadist?

You still need to explain the precise mechanisms.

Ditto.

Silly in your opinion but the cold fact is that you cannot explain how diseases could be avoided in an extremely complex process developing in accordance with the laws of nature. Man’s attempts to improve the world have frequently ended in disaster with pandemics, deformities, the extinction of species and the diseases of civilisation - not to mention the prospect of a nuclear holocaust. So much for the Brave New World ruled by scientists…

And this is the same scientific success which you claim points to our ability to “transcend” nature! Please make up your mind. Again you appear to be losing sight of the fact that for a naturalist, disease, predation and natural disasters are all perfectly explicable the context of an evolved universe. We have no bone to pick with natural forces - the only thing that could make these aspects of the world morally reprehensible is the suggestion, made by theists, that these were intentional design features brought about by a god who could have done things differently, by his very definition. An omnipotent god, in order to do any particular thing, must choose to do that thing - he cannot be constrained by circumstance, since that makes a nonsense of the claim to omnipotence.

When a system is created the designer is constrained by the need for consistency with the purposes for which the system is created. There is no point in establishing the laws of nature if they are going to be constantly suspended. Omnipotence does not mean anarchy!

Undoubtedly such constraints come to bear upon human designers. But you don’t appear to have a coherent explanation for why predation, disease, parasitism and natural disasters are necessarily consistent with the puposes of a supposedly benevolent and all-powerful deity who wants to be worshipped by free-willed beings. You don’t have an answer for why the suffering of innocent animals, for example, is necessary for humans to freely choose to believe in your god. When pressed, you have responded that it is up to us, as nonbelievers, to explain how your god functions!

 

[BobCatholic]

You certainly won’t be able to provide for them dead.

A nice Life insurance policy which has my family as beneficiaries says YES I CAN PROVIDE if I am dead.

Mind you, I’m not considering suicide, but I am aware that I am worth more dead than alive.

 

[Sair]

Undoubtedly such constraints come to bear upon human designers. But you don’t appear to have a coherent explanation for why predation, disease, parasitism and natural disasters are necessarily consistent with the puposes of a supposedly benevolent and all-powerful deity who wants to be worshipped by free-willed beings. You don’t have an answer for why the suffering of innocent animals, for example, is necessary for humans to freely choose to believe in your god. When pressed, you have responded that it is up to us, as nonbelievers, to explain how your god functions!

As an interesting cross-over point, if the existence and development of the world through natural evolution (with all the suffering and ugliness that entails, alongside the breathtaking beauty and intricacy) was necessary for the production/creation of free-willed beings, that seems to imply that free will, if we indeed have it, is a product of natural forces.

Yet this exposes a difficulty. If free will (assuming it exists) is not, in fact, a natural faculty but is an extra, supernatural faculty added to humans through god’s special creation, as many religious proponents of free will claim, then whence the need for development through evolution? If free will had to be specially created anyway, then its existence could hardly be justification for the existence of predation, disease, parasites, natural disasters and all the other subjectively unpleasant and horrifying aspects of the natural world.

So which is it to be? If we are, indeed, endowed with free will, is this something that came about naturally in accordance with the laws built into the natural world - and something that, by extension, is susceptible to scientific investigation - or is it something supernatural that god deliberately injected into humans once we had evolved? If the latter, it cannot be the case that evolution by natural selection - nor indeed all the other natural laws which supposedly constrain an “omnipotent” god - was necessary for the creation of free-willed beings.

 

[PRmerger]

‘Condemn’ is a much stronger term than ‘reject’ - one certainly can reject any belief on any basis, without necessarily expressing contempt for it. To condemn a belief - to censure or express disapproval of it - implies an additional level of revulsion being expressed, rather than simply saying, “I don’t share your belief.”

Ok. I don’t have a problem with that definition of “condemn”.

We can condemn beliefs but not condemn a person for his beliefs.