The problem of evil

[DPMartin]

So you interpret the Bible as you wish and suit you.

Actually, I see all of the world's religions (and science) as containing "nuggets" of valid information that are kind of like puzzle pieces that, when assembled, reveal an image of what the truth of reality may possibly be.

Moreover, killing an animal in hands of a human is much different from being eaten alive!

Right. The alleged fifth most intelligent animal in the world being trapped in the living hell of a factory farm for approximately six to ten months...


...before having their throats slit or being sledgehammered by a human is, indeed, "much different" (as in vastly worse) than the few fleeting seconds of misery that the random prey of a lion must endure.

Nice try!

I disagree with keeping animals in the wrong condition. In my country, the animals are kept in good condition.

You are attempting to side-step the point of this particular tangent of the discussion.

The so-called "Problem of Evil" has to do with why an alleged omnipotent God doesn't do something about the suffering of animals, when, in fact, it is humans who are responsible for much of that suffering.

Furthermore, how about you provide us with the name of your country so that we can verify your claim.
_______

[Age]

Whatever we eat is alive including animals.

So what?

AND, I think the Fact animals were ALIVE, BEFORE they are KILLED, can go without saying.

Also, why do those who were challenged over the Fact that eating animals was NOT AT ALL necessary, in the days when this was being written, commonly resorted to the Fact that plants and vegetables are alive ALSO?

They say this as though because eating fruit or vegetables, which was once alive, translates to the KILLING of live animals as being 'justified".

Yes, it justifies.

It "justifies" to WHO, EXACTY?

They also say this as though they have some emotional attraction to the 'feelings' of, and for, living fruits and vegetables.

Yes, I have emotions toward fruits and vegetables.

Okay, do you have emotions to human beings as well?

If yes, then tell us the exact process of HOW, WHY, WHEN you DECIDE to KILL some living things and NOT "others"?

If you WILL KILL a living animal, or WILL have one KILLED, just because you like the taste of it flesh or organs, then you have NO emotional connection with a living fruit or vegetable.

That simply does not follow.

WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

We just need to ensure that they are kept in a good condition.

LOL

So, HOW EXACTLY does KILLING some thing keep it in good condition?

And, would NOT letting an animal live NATURALLY instead of FARMED and bred to be SLAUGHTERED, just for the sake of your taste buds, be a MUCH BETTER, thus GOOD, CONDITION for them?

Or, do your taste buds OVERRIDE animals' welfare?

First, domestic animals cannot live without our help.

They are ONLY 'domesticated animals' because you have taken them from their NATURAL HABITAT.

And, most domesticated animals are NOT KILLED to be eaten.

Second, dying naturally is more painful than being killed at the hands of humans.

LOL

So, WHY do you NOT KILL ALL animals?

WHY do you ONLY KILL the ones you want to eat, or just for the fun of it?

Is this just a coincidence, or will you 'try to' "justify" this behavior, as well?

Also, are you here 'trying to' CLAIM that by dying UNNATURALLY, (whatever that is) is less painful than dying NATURALLY?

[seeds]

The argument has just become too semantic. "It is not God I do not accept," Dostoevsky grumbled, "But the world he has created." According, to Saint Augustine of Hippo and Philosopher Herbert Mc Cabe held wickedness was a bad that amounted to a lack of some kind. The evil argument is an absence or privation of good. Enlightenment and allegory were too many ethical questions, the explanation of hidden meanings. Hell is a separation from God. Evil is logically inherent in free will, a sufficient reason for God allowing evil. No freedom, no moral responsibility. We are not a world of puppets, we act freely. God allowing the consequence of a great good. For Saint Aquinas, "I am not free in spite of God but because of God." Not a paradox, such as, "Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life?" The problem of evil is not God's fault, but the free will of human beings. Do not be nihilistic in your thinking, in Nietzsche's thesis of the word nihilism. Be practical in your problem of evils. Nietzsche says truths are errors not given up and pragmatic. Saint Paul was following good and bad, right and wrong, in terms of natural law. By the way Epicurus: Problem of evil. Is God willing to prevent evil but not able. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. He is both able and willing? Then how can there be evil?

An excellent post, puto.

However, in regard to that often-cited Epicurean argument, I suggest that Epicurus failed to consider at least one other alternative. And that is (as I stated earlier) that God may very well have a "logical reason" for allowing evil to be a part of the design of his universe.

In other words, evil may simply be an unavoidable by-product of the attenuated level of consciousness that humans must function at (i.e., a sort of necessary degree of "somnambulism") in order for the "dream-like" illusion of our world to seem "natural" and "believable" to us.
_______

[seeds]

I disagree with keeping animals in the wrong condition. In my country, the animals are kept in good condition.

You are attempting to side-step the point of this particular tangent of the discussion.

The so-called "Problem of Evil" has to do with why an alleged omnipotent God doesn't do something about the suffering of animals, when, in fact, it is humans who are responsible for much of that suffering.

Furthermore, how about you provide us with the name of your country so that we can verify your claim.

FYI

this is the covenant (agreement) that God made with Noah and all his children. (that would be everyone after the flood)

Gen 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 
Gen 9:2  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 
Gen 9:3  Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 
Gen 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 

so God said its okey to eat flesh as long as you bleed out the flesh.

Hmmm....I wonder what that suggests about the fate of all the people who enjoy eating blood sausage and blood pudding?

This alleged covenant made between God and the mythological character known as "Noah," sounds a lot like a situation where the writers of the Bible were trying to give humanity a means by which to help diminish the guilt they may be experiencing as they look into the eyes of the goat (or whatever) they were about to slaughter for its meat.

Anyway, the passages you cited (good reference, btw) are exactly why the "Problem of Evil" is placed on God's shoulders. And that's because if God is indeed "omnipotent/omnibenevolent," then she should have created a world where no such situations could ever arise.

Which brings me back to my point that if God is powerful enough and intelligent enough to create a physiological setting that allows for trillions of lifeforms (including her very own offspring) to effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself,...

...then she is certainly intelligent (wise) enough to understand the necessary conditions that must be included in this setting in order for it to work according to design.

Like I keep saying, humans are in the near impossible position of trying to discern the ontological status and motives of a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies...


_______

[promethean75]

"a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies..."

We from planet Gong call this Being the master builder

[bahman]

The argument has just become too semantic. "It is not God I do not accept," Dostoevsky grumbled, "But the world he has created." According, to Saint Augustine of Hippo and Philosopher Herbert Mc Cabe held wickedness was a bad that amounted to a lack of some kind. The evil argument is an absence or privation of good. Enlightenment and allegory were too many ethical questions, the explanation of hidden meanings. Hell is a separation from God. Evil is logically inherent in free will, a sufficient reason for God allowing evil. No freedom, no moral responsibility. We are not a world of puppets, we act freely. God allowing the consequence of a great good. For Saint Aquinas, "I am not free in spite of God but because of God." Not a paradox, such as, "Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life?" The problem of evil is not God's fault, but the free will of human beings. Do not be nihilistic in your thinking, in Nietzsche's thesis of the word nihilism. Be practical in your problem of evils. Nietzsche says truths are errors not given up and pragmatic. Saint Paul was following good and bad, right and wrong, in terms of natural law. By the way Epicurus: Problem of evil. Is God willing to prevent evil but not able. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. He is both able and willing? Then how can there be evil? Epicurus was a theist who rejected divine intervention.

Could you please focus on OP trying to address the questions raised there? This is a bulk of statements that get us nowhere.

[bahman]

So you interpret the Bible as you wish and suit you.

Actually, I see all of the world's religions (and science) as containing "nuggets" of valid information that are kind of like puzzle pieces that, when assembled, reveal an image of what the truth of reality may possibly be.

Moreover, killing an animal in hands of a human is much different from being eaten alive!

Right. The alleged fifth most intelligent animal in the world being trapped in the living hell of a factory farm for approximately six to ten months...



...before having their throats slit or being sledgehammered by a human is, indeed, "much different" (as in vastly worse) than the few fleeting seconds of misery that the random prey of a lion must endure.

Nice try!

I disagree with keeping animals in the wrong condition. In my country, the animals are kept in good condition.

You are attempting to side-step the point of this particular tangent of the discussion.

The so-called "Problem of Evil" has to do with why an alleged omnipotent God doesn't do something about the suffering of animals, when, in fact, it is humans who are responsible for much of that suffering.

Furthermore, how about you provide us with the name of your country so that we can verify your claim.
_______

Ok, happy puzzle solving!

[bahman]

So what?

AND, I think the Fact animals were ALIVE, BEFORE they are KILLED, can go without saying.

Also, why do those who were challenged over the Fact that eating animals was NOT AT ALL necessary, in the days when this was being written, commonly resorted to the Fact that plants and vegetables are alive ALSO?

They say this as though because eating fruit or vegetables, which was once alive, translates to the KILLING of live animals as being 'justified".

Yes, it justifies.

It "justifies" to WHO, EXACTY?

To me. You are free not to eat meat if you feel guilty.

They also say this as though they have some emotional attraction to the 'feelings' of, and for, living fruits and vegetables.

Yes, I have emotions toward fruits and vegetables.

Okay, do you have emotions to human beings as well?

If yes, then tell us the exact process of HOW, WHY, WHEN you DECIDE to KILL some living things and NOT "others"?

If you WILL KILL a living animal, or WILL have one KILLED, just because you like the taste of it flesh or organs, then you have NO emotional connection with a living fruit or vegetable.

That simply does not follow.

WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

Read it to see that it does not follow. I have an emotional connection to everything I eat.

LOL

So, HOW EXACTLY does KILLING some thing keep it in good condition?

And, would NOT letting an animal live NATURALLY instead of FARMED and bred to be SLAUGHTERED, just for the sake of your taste buds, be a MUCH BETTER, thus GOOD, CONDITION for them?

Or, do your taste buds OVERRIDE animals' welfare?

First, domestic animals cannot live without our help.

They are ONLY 'domesticated animals' because you have taken them from their NATURAL HABITAT.

And, most domesticated animals are NOT KILLED to be eaten.

You don't know what domesticated animals are. Do you? They simply die without human intervention.

Second, dying naturally is more painful than being killed at the hands of humans.

LOL

So, WHY do you NOT KILL ALL animals?

They are part of the ecosystem.

WHY do you ONLY KILL the ones you want to eat, or just for the fun of it?

We are not killing domesticated animals just for fun.

Is this just a coincidence, or will you 'try to' "justify" this behavior, as well?

Also, are you here 'trying to' CLAIM that by dying UNNATURALLY, (whatever that is) is less painful than dying NATURALLY?

You have never witnessed natural death, like cancer, did you?

[DPMartin]

I disagree with keeping animals in the wrong condition. In my country, the animals are kept in good condition.

You are attempting to side-step the point of this particular tangent of the discussion.

The so-called "Problem of Evil" has to do with why an alleged omnipotent God doesn't do something about the suffering of animals, when, in fact, it is humans who are responsible for much of that suffering.

Furthermore, how about you provide us with the name of your country so that we can verify your claim.

FYI

this is the covenant (agreement) that God made with Noah and all his children. (that would be everyone after the flood)

Gen 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 
Gen 9:2  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 
Gen 9:3  Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 
Gen 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 

so God said its okey to eat flesh as long as you bleed out the flesh.

Hmmm....I wonder what that suggests about the fate of all the people who enjoy eating blood sausage and blood pudding?

This alleged covenant made between God and the mythological character known as "Noah," sounds a lot like a situation where the writers of the Bible were trying to give humanity a means by which to help diminish the guilt they may be experiencing as they look into the eyes of the goat (or whatever) they were about to slaughter for its meat.

Anyway, the passages you cited (good reference, btw) are exactly why the "Problem of Evil" is placed on God's shoulders. And that's because if God is indeed "omnipotent/omnibenevolent," then she should have created a world where no such situations could ever arise.

Which brings me back to my point that if God is powerful enough and intelligent enough to create a physiological setting that allows for trillions of lifeforms (including her very own offspring) to effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself,...

...then she is certainly intelligent (wise) enough to understand the necessary conditions that must be included in this setting in order for it to work according to design.

Like I keep saying, humans are in the near impossible position of trying to discern the ontological status and motives of a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies...


_______

na, there's no reason for the Creator and Judge to be a secret, only that people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what and use whatever is at hand to justify their thinking to anyone else.

[seeds]

Like I keep saying, humans are in the near impossible position of trying to discern the ontological status and motives of a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies...

na, there's no reason for the Creator and Judge to be a secret, only that people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what and use whatever is at hand to justify their thinking to anyone else.

And what is the "TRUTH"?

Lay it out for me, DPMartin.
_______

[DPMartin]

Like I keep saying, humans are in the near impossible position of trying to discern the ontological status and motives of a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies...

na, there's no reason for the Creator and Judge to be a secret, only that people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what and use whatever is at hand to justify their thinking to anyone else.

And what is the "TRUTH"?

Lay it out for me, DPMartin.
_______

do you think there is a higher power that is alive?

[seeds]

Like I keep saying, humans are in the near impossible position of trying to discern the ontological status and motives of a Being that is as far above us in scope and consciousness as we are above amoebas or flies...

na, there's no reason for the Creator and Judge to be a secret, only that people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what and use whatever is at hand to justify their thinking to anyone else.

And what is the "TRUTH"?

Lay it out for me, DPMartin.
_______

do you think there is a higher power that is alive?

What does that have to do with you explaining what the "TRUTH" is?

However, for the sake of allowing you to get to what I assume is a pending point, of course I think there is a higher power that is alive.

What in the world do you think I am suggesting when I create and post illustrations such as this one?...



...
_______

[Age]

Yes, it justifies.

It "justifies" to WHO, EXACTY?

To me. You are free not to eat meat if you feel guilty.

So, the "justification" the one known as "bahman" USES to KILL, and then EAT animals is because this is what "bahman" does with fruit and vegetables.

Yes, I have emotions toward fruits and vegetables.

Okay, do you have emotions to human beings as well?

If yes, then tell us the exact process of HOW, WHY, WHEN you DECIDE to KILL some living things and NOT "others"?
fun.

Read it to see that it does not follow. I have an emotional connection to everything I eat.

So what?

Also, your INABILITY to just be OPEN and Honest enough to just ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION here has NOT gone unnoticed.

You don't know what domesticated animals are. Do you? They simply die without human intervention.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, they have ONLY become 'domesticated aninals' BECAUSE 'you', human beings, have TAKEN them AWAY from their NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

ALSO, ALL animals DIE, with or without human intervention.

You REALLY do have a VERY NARROWED perspective of things here "bahman".

Oh and by the way what are 'domesticated animals', EXACTLY, to you?

They are part of the ecosystem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your ATTEMPTS AT "justifications" get MORE funnier with each ATTEMPT.

We are not killing domesticated animals just for fun.

Who does the 'we' refer to, EXACTLY, here?

You have never witnessed natural death, like cancer, did you?

OFF TOPIC.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that it is MUCH BETTER to KILL am animal DEAD, and EAT it, then it is to let it die of cancer?

If no, then what, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM here?

[bahman]

It "justifies" to WHO, EXACTY?

To me. You are free not to eat meat if you feel guilty.

So, the "justification" the one known as "bahman" USES to KILL, and then EAT animals is because this is what "bahman" does with fruit and vegetables.

Yes. As I said you are free not to eat.

Okay, do you have emotions to human beings as well?

If yes, then tell us the exact process of HOW, WHY, WHEN you DECIDE to KILL some living things and NOT "others"?
fun.

Read it to see that it does not follow. I have an emotional connection to everything I eat.

So what?

Also, your INABILITY to just be OPEN and Honest enough to just ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION here has NOT gone unnoticed.

Are you suggesting me kill a human and eat him? Perhaps I would do it if there is nothing left to eat and I am starving to death. How about you?

You don't know what domesticated animals are. Do you? They simply die without human intervention.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, they have ONLY become 'domesticated aninals' BECAUSE 'you', human beings, have TAKEN them AWAY from their NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

ALSO, ALL animals DIE, with or without human intervention.

You REALLY do have a VERY NARROWED perspective of things here "bahman".

Oh and by the way what are 'domesticated animals', EXACTLY, to you?

Whatever happened in the past it happened in the past. The reality is that domesticated animals need humans to survive.

They are part of the ecosystem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your ATTEMPTS AT "justifications" get MORE funnier with each ATTEMPT.

Don't try to play smart. You are not offering anything.

We are not killing domesticated animals just for fun.

Who does the 'we' refer to, EXACTLY, here?

Anybody who kills and eats the animal.

You have never witnessed natural death, like cancer, did you?

OFF TOPIC.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that it is MUCH BETTER to KILL am animal DEAD, and EAT it, then it is to let it die of cancer?

If no, then what, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM here?

I am saying that we are giving the domesticated animal chance to live. It is absurd to support them and let them die naturally without using their meat. Natural death is always harder than being killed by a human.

[DPMartin]

And what is the "TRUTH"?

Lay it out for me, DPMartin.
_______

do you think there is a higher power that is alive?

What does that have to do with you explaining what the "TRUTH" is?

However, for the sake of allowing you to get to what I assume is a pending point, of course I think there is a higher power that is alive.

What in the world do you think I am suggesting when I create and post illustrations such as this one?...


...
_______

then who or what do you think the higher power is and why do you think you can't know it?
the illustration sucks by the way, no offence meant .