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

[tonyrey]

No response! :

1. God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.

1. Conflict and interference are inevitable in a physical system where billions of creatures are pursuing different goals.

                           These two statements are contradictory. God didn't design them,  but somehow they are inevitable?

A designer is constrained by what is designed. The system would become so chaotic and unpredictable it would be impossible for animals to survive.

You seem to be saying that somehow it’s too Complicated for God to keep it all under control.

The universe is not too complicated for God to control directly but that would make it impossible for animals to survive by instinct or for persons to lead a rational existence.

The number of microbes that cause disease is a minute proportion of those that exist.

So why do the few harmful ones exist?

The vast number of individuals and their constantly changing environment amount to far more than “a few kinks”.

Viruses are usually more harmful but even they perform useful functions.

If he was truly omnipotent then he would be able to do good without creating ebola and AIDS.

They were not created but emerged gradually in a constantly changing environment.

Malfunctions presuppose functions.

Not sure what this means.

Life preceded death, health preceded disease, normality preceded abnormality and success preceded failure.

90% of mutations are disadvantageous but they have promoted rather than prevented the successful development of life.

Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient being is controlling the system. Okay, so why the 90% inefficiency?

Piecemeal improvements are not a valid objection to the overall success of the system. A living organism is so immensely complex it is inevitable that the slightest modification is disadvantageous.

1. Predation is swifter and more efficient than a system in which animals suffer a lingering death from injury or disease.

It’s also a brutal, miserable system that causes much more suffering than easily imaginable other systems.

Imaginable but not feasible! Please suggest an alternative means of achieving the same results.

8. All living organisms are interdependent and cannot exist as isolated individuals.

So many things God can’t do! I thought he was able to do anything he pleased!

Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency - unless chaos is the object of the exercise!

The development of parasites presupposes the development of successful organisms.

Not always. Plenty of things have never been parasites.

Exactly. Parasites presuppose non-parasitic organisms.

]

To expect universal normality with an incredibly rich variety of individuals is unrealistic.

1. The laws of nature do not take into account individual needs.

Therefore God made them this way, therefore he designed the universe to be as nasty toward life as it is, and designed life to be “red in tooth and claw.”

The “red in tooth and claw” chestnut reveals a lack of originality, insight and appreciation of nature - which is far more beautiful and efficient than any human machine - and overlooks the inability of natural laws to take into account individual needs.

1. The immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

Agreed. But the immense brutality of life does not point to a perfect, benevolent designer. It points to a purposeless struggle for survival.

Since the immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks life is hardly a purposeless struggle for survival. Value presupposes purpose.

Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet?

Of course not. There wouldn’t be any concept of “better” if life wasn’t around to make it up.

There could be life with drawbacks which far outweigh its value.

Do you regret having been born?
Nope.

Then you have no cause to complain…

Do you wish your family and friends had never been born (and would you tell them that’s what you think!) ?

Likewise…

  I'm saying that the real conditions of life are  inconsistent with the Christian God as a designer of the universe.

Without providing any valid reasons.

 

[Sair]

No response! :

A designer is constrained by what is designed. The system would become so chaotic and unpredictable it would be impossible for animals to survive.

                                             The universe is not too complicated for God to control directly but that would make it impossible for animals to  survive by instinct or for persons to lead a rational existence.

The vast number of individuals and their constantly changing environment amount to far more than “a few kinks”.
They were not created but emerged gradually in a constantly changing environment.Life preceded death, health preceded disease, normality preceded abnormality and success preceded failure.
Piecemeal improvements are not a valid objection to the overall success of the system. A living organism is so immensely complex it is inevitable that the slightest modification is disadvantageous.
Imaginable but not feasible! Please suggest an alternative means of achieving the same results.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency - unless chaos is the object of the exercise!
Exactly. Parasites presuppose non-parasitic organisms.
To expect universal normality with an incredibly rich variety of individuals is unrealistic.

                                  The "red in tooth and claw" chestnut  reveals a lack of originality, insight and appreciation of nature -  which is far more  beautiful and efficient than any human machine - and overlooks the inability of natural laws to take into account  individual needs.

Since the immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks life is hardly a purposeless struggle for survival. Value presupposes purpose.

There could be life with drawbacks which far outweigh its value.
Then you have no cause to complain…
Likewise…

Without providing any valid reasons.

All of this amounts to making excuses for why the God of Classical Theism is either not really omnipotent, not really omniscient, not really benevolent or not really anything like what he is claimed to be. As if he were the CEO of an imperfect universal corporation - “Oh, we’ve achieved some of our mission statement, but, you know, undesirable and unexpected(!) things will happen…” If your god does not conform to human standards, why all these human-sized escape clauses?

 

[tonyrey]

*No response! :

A designer is constrained by what is designed. The system would become so chaotic and unpredictable it would be impossible for animals to survive.

                                             The universe is not too  complicated for God to control directly but that would make it  impossible for animals to  survive by instinct or for persons to lead a  rational existence.

The vast number of individuals and their constantly changing environment amount to far more than “a few kinks”.
They were not created but emerged gradually* in a constantly changing environment.Life preceded death, health preceded disease, normality preceded abnormality and success preceded failure.
Piecemeal improvements are not a valid objection to the overall success of the system. A living organism is so immensely complex it is inevitable that the slightest modification is disadvantageous.
Imaginable but not feasible! Please suggest an alternative means of achieving the same results.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency - unless chaos is the object of the exercise!
Exactly. Parasites presuppose non-parasitic organisms.
To expect universal normality with an incredibly rich variety of individuals is unrealistic.

                                  The "red in tooth and claw"  chestnut  reveals a lack of originality, insight and appreciation of  nature -  which is far more  beautiful and efficient than any human  machine - and overlooks the inability of natural laws to take into  account  individual needs.

Since the immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks life is hardly a purposeless struggle for survival. Value presupposes purpose.

There could be life with drawbacks which far outweigh its value.
Then you have no cause to complain…
Likewise…

Without providing any valid reasons.All of this amounts to making excuses for why the God of Classical Theism is either not really omnipotent, not really omniscient, not really benevolent or not really anything like what he is claimed to be. As if he were the CEO of an imperfect universal corporation - “Oh, we’ve achieved some of our mission statement, but, you know, undesirable and unexpected(!) things will happen…” If your god does not conform to human standards, why all these human-sized escape clauses?

It would be far more to the point and far more convincing if you refuted each statement individually rather than taking the easy way out by indulging in sweeping assertions and sarcastic terms of abuse…

What you facilely - and gratuitously - describe as “escape clauses” are the inevitable consequences of creating an orderly universe with specific attributes which does not require piecemeal improvements and constant ad hoc interventions…

**Perhaps **you can give some indications of a feasible system that would meet with all your conditions and requirements - including of course the power to choose what to believe and how to live independently…

 

[tonyrey]

1. A world without drawbacks is a fantasy.
2. If God directly controlled every event it would be impossible for animals to survive instinctively or for persons to live independently.
3. Life entails death, health disease, normality abnormality and success failure.
4. The possibility of improvements is not a valid criticism.
5. The slightest modification of a highly complex organism is generally destructive.
6. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity or inconsistency.
7. Parasites presuppose healthy organisms.
8. Abnormality is inevitable where there is great variety.
9. Despite the beauty and power of nature it cannot consider every individual need.
10. The value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

 

[Bradski]

Imaginable but not feasible! Please suggest an alternative means of achieving the same results.

This was in reply to a statement that predation is a brutal and miserable system – much more than any alternatives. So you are saying that there couldn’t be another way of organising a rich mixture of life that was self-sustaining and non-predatory? That predation is necessary?

 

[tonyrey]

This was in reply to a statement that predation is a brutal and miserable system – much more than any alternatives. So you are saying that there couldn’t be another way of organising a rich mixture of life that was self-sustaining and non-predatory? That predation is necessary?

There could be another way if you could explain how life with all its power, beauty and richness could exist in the total absence of competition…

Do you believe the “brutal and miserable system” is a good reason for not creating life on this planet?

If not why not?