MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
I also heard the other day that bears have carnivore teeth and are in many cases herbivores, but of course can be both. Sharp teeth doesn't always mean strictly carnivore 
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Aminals die its nature, humans die it's bad God
- Thread starter MattersOfTheHeart
- Start date
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Animals inhabited the first paradise which was on earth...they will be in the paradise to come because it is also on earth.
The "new earth" will be a restoration of what humans lost through disobedience.
Our fascination with animals and their interaction with us is a constant source of delight....it will continue to be.....and life will be as it was meant to be in the beginning.
I really can't imagine starving to death or dying in a volcanic eruption can be perceived as anything but suffering.
You brought up that hypothetical example of visiting a cousin having a beautiful clean fresh baby, but also consider the opposite, where a cousin does everything in her power to try to have a healthy birth and ends up having a still birth, or a suffering and dying birth, which happens. The child my parents had right prior to my birth died due to a genetic abnormality. My mother's brother was seemingly healthy until he randomly died in his sleep as a teenager. Stuff happens without any mortal fault.
So basically you're saying my posts consists of elegant adjectives, which is basically saying I'm using emotional appeal, but I'd suggest the opposite, that that is what your post is. My post is about information regarding the world: mass extinction events, the endless predator/prey cycle, the violence and death that is known to precede our species a thousandfold times over, which were not addressed. In contrast, an anecdotal report about a beautiful born baby, can be countered by a simple example of a horribly born suffering baby. Both of them get to be in the discussion.
This still is not an answer to my post.
Who said that has to be the first thing that comes to mind when a god is brought up? There are so many religions in the world, so many things that could come to mind when a god is brought up.
You're the one that brought up this thread; not me. You criticized arguments of non-theists and I've explained them, and they have not been answered.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
Hmm I suppose I am a little confused.
So, yes there are countless natural disasters and unfortunate events like dying babies.
Then there are also wonderful natural events and wonderful living babies.
I think my post originally was just about that suffering seems to be a word that is misused to bolster emotional appeal for those anti-theists quite often.
Somewhere in your latest post I guess you presented information that makes that statement not true?
Not trying to be pig headed, just simplify the parts to our discussion, if that is OK?
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Well. In the bible, god allegedly says that the beasts of the earth were put thereupon for mankind's benefit (food, etc). But man is god's own creation, created in his image. Therefore, logically, a divine creator should have a more vested interest in protecting those he specifically created out of love than the beasts of the earth.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
The point of the Problem of Evil, essentially, is to ask why grievous suffering exists in a world that theists claimed has been created by and is governed by an omnipotent benevolent deity.
Like, why are 99% of all species that have existed on earth currently extinct, why are there deadly natural disasters, why have there been several mass extinction events, why is there so much suffering and predation in nature including rather elaborate toxin and killing strategies, why are there birth defects, why are there gruesome diseases, why do the majority of offspring of animals die before adulthood, etc. Is this the optimal way to maximize well-being of conscious creatures? If not, then what variables would an omnipotent benevolent being try to optimize instead of well-being?
Pointing to the existence of healthy children and rainbows in addition to those things doesn't answer those questions.
And the reasons why those questions become less relevant or completely irrelevant when the theistic idea of an omnipotent benevolent deity is dropped from the discussion is because that's the only variable that seems to conflict with those realities. A person can be unhappy about the existence of suffering in nature in an atheistic universe, but the problem of it being in conflict with the idea of a surprisingly powerful and loving deity wouldn't be a question. Those questions above aren't relevant for a universe without a god and aren't relevant for a universe with a god that doesn't concern itself with well-being of conscious creatures in it, but they are relevant for a worldview where it is claimed that all of this was created by a deity that has more power and love than is imaginable and cares about conscious creatures.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I also heard the other day that bears have carnivore teeth and are in many cases herbivores, but of course can be both. Sharp teeth doesn't always mean strictly carnivore
Because both bears and humans are omnivores, they have been two of the most successful mammals in evolution.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Then they will visit the plains of Africa and when a child gasps at a lion feeding on a giraffe, the child is told, it is the circle of life and while it seems hard, it is a beautiful and harsh part of our life, all at the same time."
Not if it was 15,000 years ago. It would be common place.
Most of us get our food at supermarkets.
It wouldn't have been nice if we had evolved a different mechanism for nutrition.
The idea of God could have evolved in our minds to help cope with the harsh realities of nature.
That's been done many times before. We don't understand it, there fore a God or God did it or is doing it. What about animal sacrifice to a God or Gods in the past?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
A killer's genes - Are You Good or Evil? - Horizon - BBC
[youtube]WAbUmF4Pujc[/youtube]
A killer's genes - Are You Good or Evil? - Horizon - BBC - YouTube
Doctors want to get rid of violence gene
[youtube]IadIQHuepJ4[/youtube]
Doctors want to get rid of violence gene - YouTube
Its not all in the Gene but...
[youtube]WAbUmF4Pujc[/youtube]
A killer's genes - Are You Good or Evil? - Horizon - BBC - YouTube
Doctors want to get rid of violence gene
[youtube]IadIQHuepJ4[/youtube]
Doctors want to get rid of violence gene - YouTube
Its not all in the Gene but...
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Yeah, it’s another way of saying, “Why doesn’t heaven exist?” or “If an all perfect god exists then why didn’t that god create a perfect world?”
It’s a logical fallacy of argumentum ad passions or an appeal to emotion and is a red hearing. It is also an appeal to authority, that many anti-theist don’t believe in the first place. So in other words, its a bogus argument.
Don't follow. Please explain.
What is the double standard? I don't quite get what you are getting at.
People could stop suffering too. I don't understand what god has to do with it. It is more like shifting the burden of proof to something that is unreasonable and not justified.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I am sorry for this lengthy response to you post Penumbra, but you raised so many very important points.
The Bible indicates that the world was indeed created by a benevolent deity...but it is not governed by him at present. A pretender (a powerful rebel who made himself an adversary of the deity) was given control over the human race for a specific purpose and for a limited time.
This adversary did not challenge God's power but he called into question the rightfulness of his laws in relation to his human creation. God is allowing the human race to experience life under his rulership with little intervention from himself, to prove a very valuable point. He alone is the rightful ruler of mankind.
God made everything wonderful at the start but the usurper came in unannounced and hijacked his creation, making the Creator out to be a cruel dictator and a selfish ruler, turning everything on its head.
God could have wiped the rebels out in a heartbeat, but he chose a long term solution and decided to allow the devil to prove he was the better god and ruler of mankind. He gave him a free hand in order for the choice as to whether to serve him as god would be ours, not his. In all of this, God would not leave himself without witness.
The Creator is an artist and maybe he had a reason for eliminating a particular creation, (he doesn't tell us) or perhaps he decided to refashion it...(all species have the ability to adapt to changing environments....some may call this adaptation evolution.)
Dinosaurs, who existed long before we did, may have been created for a purpose and a time and when they fulfilled their purpose, their reproductive abilities may have been withdrawn. We know that they did not co-exist with humans....I for one am glad they didn't.
Some of these extinctions took place over time or were the result of some catastrophic event. Do we know all the facts? If not, we cannot make factual judgments based on assumptions can we?
Predation was not part of God's first purpose, so I often wonder if the adversary has the power to change animal behaviors like he can with humans?
Science can tell us how we die...but it cannot tell us why. The process of cell renewal in the human body should theoretically go on forever, but at some point, it breaks down and begins to degenerate.
It's not a matter of "if" but "when".
The Bible indicates that the world was indeed created by a benevolent deity...but it is not governed by him at present. A pretender (a powerful rebel who made himself an adversary of the deity) was given control over the human race for a specific purpose and for a limited time.
This adversary did not challenge God's power but he called into question the rightfulness of his laws in relation to his human creation. God is allowing the human race to experience life under his rulership with little intervention from himself, to prove a very valuable point. He alone is the rightful ruler of mankind.
God made everything wonderful at the start but the usurper came in unannounced and hijacked his creation, making the Creator out to be a cruel dictator and a selfish ruler, turning everything on its head.
God could have wiped the rebels out in a heartbeat, but he chose a long term solution and decided to allow the devil to prove he was the better god and ruler of mankind. He gave him a free hand in order for the choice as to whether to serve him as god would be ours, not his. In all of this, God would not leave himself without witness.
Because life on this planet had been going on long before man arrived....many of the species you mentioned were long gone before we even showed up. It was not the work in progress that was of interest to the Creator but the finished product, which he finally declared to be "very good".
The Creator is an artist and maybe he had a reason for eliminating a particular creation, (he doesn't tell us) or perhaps he decided to refashion it...(all species have the ability to adapt to changing environments....some may call this adaptation evolution.)
Dinosaurs, who existed long before we did, may have been created for a purpose and a time and when they fulfilled their purpose, their reproductive abilities may have been withdrawn. We know that they did not co-exist with humans....I for one am glad they didn't.
A lot of the current natural disasters are the product of man's interference with the earth. He has altered climate by changing the landscape to suit himself. The lungs of the earth are being removed and ecosystems tampered with...severe storms and extreme weather events are being generated seemingly out of nowhere. Global warming is hotly debated. How much of this is generated by man's activities?
Again, understanding why something becomes extinct is important before we go assigning blame to God for their demise. If he brought them into existence, then he can remove them if it suits his purpose.
Some of these extinctions took place over time or were the result of some catastrophic event. Do we know all the facts? If not, we cannot make factual judgments based on assumptions can we?
I see predation in some parts of the animal kingdom, but seriously, I do not see much suffering. By and large, animals kill their prey very quickly in most cases. If creatures have no awareness of what is happening to them, do they really suffer as we understand suffering? Who can tell us how animals interpret pain?
Predation was not part of God's first purpose, so I often wonder if the adversary has the power to change animal behaviors like he can with humans?
I believe that man lost his perfection due to the death penalty implemented after his disobedience. Even though it was a clearly stated penalty, the Bible doesn't say what form the death penalty took. It could have affected the function of the immune system with a breaking down of the human genome in some way that results in genetic faults that would lead to aging, sickness and death, passed onto all succeeding generations. This would explain why we degenerate, get sick, sometimes have defective children and die prematurely.
Science can tell us how we die...but it cannot tell us why. The process of cell renewal in the human body should theoretically go on forever, but at some point, it breaks down and begins to degenerate.
If the original scenario was derailed by God's enemy, and rulership of the world was handed over to this adversary so that he could prove his claim to be the better choice of god and ruler of this earth, then I believe that it was he who altered the 'well-being of conscious creatures'. Nothing on this earth is as God intended. Nothing is unpolluted or clean, either physically, morally or spiritually, at present...but that will all change when God reinstates his sovereignty over obedient mankind...obedience is, after all, the only thing God required of his human children at the start. The kingdom that Christians were told to pray for is the means by which God will bring back what we lost.
The 'Omnipotent, Benevolent Being' tells us in advance what the outcome will be. He tells us what went wrong and he clearly identifies the usurper and tells us what his agenda is. We can then make a choice as to whom we will accept as our God.
I guess some of us are sick of the rot we experience at the hands of others in this world....it is nice to sometimes remind ourselves about the rainbows and the healthy babies. The world is still a beautiful place...it's just that many of the people in it are spoiling it for everyone else. The devil has them imitating him. God has promised to remove them, and their god but only after giving humans many opportunities to change their ways. The devil is not redeemable, but the human race are.
And taking the long range view has to do with a limited time of suffering in order to bring about an eternity of peace and security on an earth that was held to ransom by a powerful rebel. The hostages are humankind, and the ransom has been paid to secure their release. We are just waiting for the savior to come back and take us back home to the paradise we lost.
It's not a matter of "if" but "when".
Last edited:
I'm not particularly interested in Christian theology. I find it to be one of the least sensible descriptions of reality out of most major world religions when compared to the evidence of the history of the earth.
Predation, death, immense natural disasters- these things predated humanity by millions of years. Those ideas and texts were formulated when people didn't understand the history of the planet very well.
So a trillion deaths are needed for eventual perfection?
Most of it is not, judging by the track record of weather on earth, including ice ages, periods of immense heating, times when the sun was blocked for years, etc.The Creator is an artist and maybe he had a reason for eliminating a particular creation, (he doesn't tell us) or perhaps he decided to refashion it...(all species have the ability to adapt to changing environments....some may call this adaptation evolution.)
Dinosaurs, who existed long before we did, may have been created for a purpose and a time and when they fulfilled their purpose, their reproductive abilities may have been withdrawn. We know that they did not co-exist with humans....I for one am glad they didn't.
A lot of the current natural disasters are the product of man's interference with the earth. He has altered climate by changing the landscape to suit himself. The lungs of the earth are being removed and ecosystems tampered with...severe storms and extreme weather events are being generated seemingly out of nowhere. Global warming is hotly debated. How much of this is generated by man's activities?
I saw a documentary where a mother lion let the young ones kill an antelope, and they brought it down but didn't quite know how to kill it yet. She let them keep trying, probably so they eventually get practice, as the prey kept squirming around in an unrecognizable bloody mess for a long time. It eventually bled out.Again, understanding why something becomes extinct is important before we go assigning blame to God for their demise. If he brought them into existence, then he can remove them if it suits his purpose.
Some of these extinctions took place over time or were the result of some catastrophic event. Do we know all the facts? If not, we cannot make factual judgments based on assumptions can we?
I see predation in some parts of the animal kingdom, but seriously, I do not see much suffering. By and large, animals kill their prey very quickly in most cases. If creatures have no awareness of what is happening to them, do they really suffer as we understand suffering? Who can tell us how animals interpret pain?
I saw another show where these beluga whales were in the arctic ocean, which freezes mostly over in winter. In order to breathe, they have to find and try to maintain small holes in the ice, and they get trapped because miles in each direction has a solid ice covering. These whales were trapped at a hole for about 6 months straight without food, having to go up and breathe every few minutes, and polar bears waited at the hole to keep trying to kill a whale, and every once in a while they got one. All of the whales had enormous deep scars covering every inch of their backs from multiple attempted bear attacks over the course of the winter. So that's about six months straight of repetitively getting cut up and going hungry, and they face that risk every winter.
The idea that animals don't suffer from pain seems to be speculative wishful thinking. Our nervous systems are quite the same as other species. Ever have a pet? I saw a dog when her kidney burst from a disease, and she was spasming and letting out the most sickening high pitched squeals all while she was rushed to the vet to be looked at and then put down.
What makes you say that? Predation existed for millions of years.Predation was not part of God's first purpose, so I often wonder if the adversary has the power to change animal behaviors like he can with humans?
Basically all of this has to ignore all scientific understanding of the history of the planet in order to be said. So it's not really all that relevant. A proper defense of the claim doesn't have to ignore or alter known facts about the world and the universe.I believe that man lost his perfection due to the death penalty implemented after his disobedience. Even though it was a clearly stated penalty, the Bible doesn't say what form the death penalty took. It could have affected the function of the immune system with a breaking down of the human genome in some way that results in genetic faults that would lead to aging, sickness and death, passed onto all succeeding generations. This would explain why we degenerate, get sick, sometimes have defective children and die prematurely.
Science can tell us how we die...but it cannot tell us why. The process of cell renewal in the human body should theoretically go on forever, but at some point, it breaks down and begins to degenerate.
If the original scenario was derailed by God's enemy, and rulership of the world was handed over to this adversary so that he could prove his claim to be the better choice of god and ruler of this earth, then I believe that it was he who altered the 'well-being of conscious creatures'. Nothing on this earth is as God intended. Nothing is unpolluted or clean, either physically, morally or spiritually, at present...but that will all change when God reinstates his sovereignty over obedient mankind...obedience is, after all, the only thing God required of his human children at the start. The kingdom that Christians were told to pray for is the means by which God will bring back what we lost.
The 'Omnipotent, Benevolent Being' tells us in advance what the outcome will be. He tells us what went wrong and he clearly identifies the usurper and tells us what his agenda is. We can then make a choice as to whom we will accept as our God.
I guess some of us are sick of the rot we experience at the hands of others in this world....it is nice to sometimes remind ourselves about the rainbows and the healthy babies. The world is still a beautiful place...it's just that many of the people in it are spoiling it for everyone else. The devil has then imitating him. God has promised to remove them, and their god but only after giving humans many opportunities to change their ways. The devil is not redeemable, but the human race are.
And taking the long range view has to do with a limited time of suffering in order to bring about an eternity of peace and security on an earth that was held to ransom by a powerful rebel. The hostages are humankind, and the ransom has been paid to secure their release. We are just waiting for the savior to come back and take us back home to the paradise we lost.
Wow! That is some critter. When I was reading about its skills in securing its host I couldn't help but wonder.....
Just reading this, doesn't it make you wonder how the wasp knew where to explicitly inject both the first and second strike on its victim? For a human to do something equivalent, would take a university degree.
He would also probably have to visit the pharmacist to get his injectables.
So, you think it's a sensible design? My take would be that it's about as convoluted and ridiculous a method for acquiring basic nutrients as you could imagine.
Um...its cockroach.
Nup, it's a wasp. If you're point is that the wasp doesn't act with any evil intent, and that we can't expect 'moral behaviour' from it, then of course I would agree. It's completely unrelated to the point I am making though. I am not questioning the morality of the wasp, but the design principles of the Creator.
I'll skip over the rest, since it relates to a straw-man argument suggesting I think wasps are capable of moral decisions, etc.
I specifically included the example as a discussion point around the issues of God and existence of evil using a non-human context. My point is that acts we would see as needlessly complicated for their purpose, needlessly painful, and unrelated to human activity can be identified.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of my position since it's admittedly subjective in nature. I am merely offering a simple, single example of what I would see as poor design involving pain and suffering in the non-human world.
Yeah, I agree. I've come across various arguments relating to God and evil, and their ability to co-exist, and generally the non-human world is neither included nor specifically excluded, but merely goes unmentioned. I think the subjectivity of it when compared to measures of human morality, etc, account for this, to a large degree.
I don't tend to believe in certain fact, but I think this makes a lot of sense, that notwithstanding.
Yep, I think that's right. For me personally, it's quite a grey area in a lot of ways. I can articulate my reasoning for things being needlessly harsh in my mind, but would readily admit to there being a whole raft of natural occurences I have a far less certain opinion on.
Hmmm...interesting. I've never thought of it in quite those terms. It makes some sense to me, on the fact of it, but I'll have to mull over it for a while.
In other words, to make the claim that the universe is harsh, we are admitting we feel that it is something against some deeper part of our being. Otherwise harsh would not be harsh, we would not know what harsh is, it would simply be part of life, neither good nor bad.
Few will succumb to this though, and retreat to the safe zone of, "I just meant it is harsh in another sense, there is not real good or bad, and harshness is just a way for us to describe our world views etc."
Again, it is quite difficult to address that one line you wrote, but I hope this kind of opened the door to what I meant.
Just to clarify my viewpoint, I'm not measuring 'harsh' as a concept against 'not harsh'. I am measuring 'needlessly harsh' (such as the emerald cockroach wasp example) against other means used to achieve the same ends. So in the case of eating other creatures for nutrients, it would be seen as 'harsh' versus 'more harsh' to some degree.
Harsh doesn't worry me in the same way needlessly harsh does, if that makes any sense at all?
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
Well it makes sense to me.
To elaborate a bit more on what I was getting at.
Judging something to be harsh, especially when we start talking about the universe or nature of something, we have to decide is there really a definitive meaning to the word harsh. (this is where the majority jump on the subjective ship, missing a wonderful world of mystery and revelation)
What are we comparing that word against? Against a moving target? (albeit slavery is harsh today, but years ago not so much to the slave owners who enjoyed it)
Is a moving target of harsh really a definition, or is it a watered down version of "something" we lazily call harsh?
Words become useless, as you may well know, if they are apt to mean just about anything one wishes it to mean.
However, when an individual is shall I say bold enough, courageous enough to admit underneath all the watered and moving versions of the word harsh, exists an unalterable meaning to which it resides outside of human construct.
Perhaps it is we humans that are aware of harshness proper, but we did not invent it. Then who did, and where did it come from?
If nothing is harsh then we should never have known of the word to begin with, and I hope others take the time to riddle this out for themselves.
Regardless of ones spiritual outlook, there is a fact within this reasoning that leaves one on a ground that has shifted a little.
Hope that isn't to mystical sounding.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
This is very interesting thread but I'm a bit late so I'll just give my 2 cents on the OP rather than jumping in on all the other well considered posts.
I think there may actually be 3 standards depending on perspective. First, in a world without humans, I do not believe there is such a thing as good and evil in any sense. Life and death is a cycle. A dead rabbit, a satisfied wolf. Without the death the wolf would starve and there would still be death. Even in this world without humans, suffering is relative.
In a world with humans, good and evil exist, but only subjectively. If a tiger kills me it is evil as it relates to me, and to humanity. Suffering takes on a facade that leads to ethics, morality, and the concepts of good and evil.
As an ecologist, I appreciate the cycle of life and death for what it is, yet I do not want to be eaten, or diseased, or run over by a bus. I have been trained to see this on two levels, one relative to my life experience, and one by removing myself from the equation. (You can replace self with humanity.)
In a world with omni-god, good and evil now exist objectively. Suffering is no longer part of a natural cycle. It is by design. It is a test or it is a punishment.
The thought experiment that follows from these standards asks which of these possible conditions is supported by observation and thought?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
For one thing, many versions of the problem of evil don't differentiate between human and animal suffering- some even point out the prevalence of suffering in the natural world. For another, harm towards and suffering of moral agents is generally taken to be far more ethically salient than harm towards entities that are not moral agents. And lastly, we're humans. Is it a surprise that humans focus on the suffering of other humans more than other species? Is there even anything untoward about it?
In any case, all your point amounts to here is that maybe we should make a bigger fuss about the suffering of animals, and how this conflicts with the concept of an all-powerful/all-knowing/all-loving god- but so far as the problem of evil goes, one hardly has to list ALL evils, the problem can be created by mentioning any evils. From a logical point of view, the suffering of animals is just redundant; the point can be made with or without mentioning it.