Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc?

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, ... — Pfhorrest

What is wrong with that?

The suffering part? I mean, that's kind of the thing being called "evil" here.

Explain.

and all power full

Isn't this based on a dumb-God though?

You took a man in a cloud with super powers all the way, and did not even think that God might be a different thing all together?

What if God only created the universe, and isn't superpowerful?

I can imagine a God form that had the know-how but no superpowers. This God form is not necessarily one thing can be of many things in a species.

I'm not saying you're wrong but the discussion may take odd turns with such neglect.

I suppose we are assuming the abrahamic God.

Yeah.

Then the question is still there can God be all powerful and all good at the same time?

ok so i grew up jewish so... presumably still the abrahamic god, but the jewish god isn't this wonderful, all good, all loving father figure that christians portray him. i mean don't get me wrong, he's "essentially" good in the sense that it all works out for some purpose, but he does directly cause misfortune. i'm not a religious jew, but as far as i can tell from my knowledge of the bible is that the jewish god can occasionally be negotiated with and that he can do good things sometimes but good god do not get him angry.

God condones of suffering, blah blah, he, thinks it through (an example of odd turn; we've blamed it on one being).

The majority think that X action deserves Y punishment. Blame them in the same manner as you did God.

They put Z in a position where Z might suffer. What is the resolution?

It's not 'he's thought it through'. It's multiple minds thinking. Is there a difference? I think so but need to think it over. I'll reply later on.

God uses pronouns like I, which is a whole different boat to we.

And we're discussing we.

But if we are using that “it is all part of his plan” logic what kind of God would he/she be if his/her plan requires the death of children and mothers, and if he/she is powerful enough to create any kind of universe but created one where children have to suffer for his/her plan then is that a good God?

And if we assume if God is good then he would have created a better universe thus if God is all powerful then he/she is not all good and if he/she is all good the he/she is not all powerful.

I don’t think we can blame it on someone. There is no one to be blamed. Every bodies actions are result of his/her biological genies and her/his environment in which no one has control over.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

:up:

The Problem of Evil that is the topic of this thread is specifically an argument that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God is incompatibile with the existence of evil. A trivial way out of the Problem is to deny that God has all of those omni-properties, or to deny that evil actually exists. The Free Will Theodicy that the OP is talking about, though, is meant to offer a way to preserve the possibility of God having those omni-properties and still excuse the existence of evil.

That creates the question that is a God that gives priority to free will rather than the well being of his creations is even a God with all the Omni properties?

The argument of the free will theodicy (which I disagree with, I'm just explaining it) is that having free will is such a good thing that it can outweigh other bad things that God might have to permit in order for free will to exist. God would prefer to have all of the good things and none of the bad, but (the argument goes) that's not logically possible, to get rid of all of the other good things would require getting rid of free will, and to allow free will would allow some of the other good things to be lost, so God's choices (so goes the argument) are a world with all the good things except free will, or a world with free will that might end up without some of the other good things, and the latter is supposedly the better and so what an all-good God has to choose.

Some people do say that is God has to choose between those and can't somehow make it both, then he's not all-powerful, but others reply that "all-powerful" doesn't require being able to do things that don't make any logical sense, which supposedly allowing free will but preventing all evils doesn't.

God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude ... — TheMadFool

In no sense is a parent deemed "good" who is "impartial" to the point of allowing her "children" to prey upon, torture & cannibalize one another.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

:clap:

An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and not necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine'):

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
(b) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
(c) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
(d) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE)

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

In the beginning I thought that a population of predators/parasites would be necessary to check the herbivore population to prevent a population explosion that would eventually hurt the ecosystem but I realize that it's possible even with current technology, if we had the will, to take all predators/parasites out of the equation and still maintain a harmonious population of herbivores or rather non-predatory organisms, non-parasitic organisms on the planet. God could have done that but he didn't. Why? Note that I'm employing predators/parasites as the quintessence of evil since it involves committing the worst immoral act - killing. Why did god create predators/parasites or evil? They seem, quite literally, unnecessary.

The existence of predators/parasites only makes sense if the killing makes sense. What about freedom? Did god grant all life complete freedom, to do whatever they please, and that, quite unfortunately, led to the birth of predators/parasites. Which is more important, freedom or harmony considered here as the absence of predators/parasites? Take the free will defense against the problem of evil: from it we gather that freedom is more important than goodness for being good should be a choice rather than an imposition from outside. Therefore, organisms should have complete freedom whether they choose to be trouble-makers (parasites/predators) or peaceful (non-predatory, non-parasitic). Hence, because freedom is paramount, god allows predators/parasites to exist as part of the natural evil that surrounds us.

In no sense is a parent deemed "good" who is "impartial" to the point of allowing her "children" to prey upon, torture & cannibalize one another — 180 Proof

Please read my reply to Pfhorrest above. The main point is that freedom is more important than goodness and all organisms (children) must be given complete freedom to do whatever they want and that may, unfortunately, involve organisms (brothers and sisters that we are) preying, torturing and cannibalizing our own kin.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

Because God’s omniscience is only possible, not actual. The life forms need to develop an awareness of each other in order to live in perfect cooperative harmony - or at least some of them would need to...

Dear TheMadFool,

In your post, you made the following claim:
Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. The widely held belief that equality is one of the pillars of the moral edifice should make that easily relatable…. God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria.
I think your argument has this form:

1) If God is good, then he is impartial in his treatment of his creation.
2) If he is impartial in his treatment of his creation, then any bad things that happen to living organisms are permitted by God on an impartial basis.
3. If any bad things that happen to living organisms are permitted by God on an impartial basis, then any bad things that happen to living organisms are not evil.
3) God is good.
4) Therefore, any bad things that happen to living organisms are not evil.

If this argument works, it would be significant, as the problem of natural evil presents a significant and persistent challenge to theism. I have the following objection to your argument: Premise three is faulty, because it assumes that each living organism in nature is of equal worth. To say that a human being dying is not bad if it provides food to bacteria seems extreme, as humans have a far higher emotional and cognitive capacity than bacteria (if bacteria have any cognitive and emotional abilities at all). If a human suffers and dies in a natural disaster, then it seems like the evil of that disaster cannot be mitigated by saying that bacteria, which do not think or feel, are able to feed off the dead human. Your mention of the genetic similarities between humans and chimps also presents a problem. If your claim that all living organisms are equal is based on sharing DNA, then the parameters of this equality are problematic. Bananas and human beings share 50% of their DNA, but few people, if anyone, would say that bananas and human beings are equal. Because your claim about the equality of living things is not well defined and could lead one to saying that human beings and plants are of equal value, your third premise is faulty, and your argument fails.

Sincerely,

Joel

3. If any bad things that happen to living organisms are permitted by God on an impartial basis, then any bad things that happen to living organisms are not evil. — Joel Evans

1. Equality is the main pillar of morality. Agreed?

2. If equality is the main pillar of morality then any attempt to establish differences that eventually breed inequality is immoral. Agreed?

Conclusion:

3. Any attempt to establish differences that eventually breed inequality is immoral

4. Your claim that humans are different from other beings is an attempt to estabish differences that [will] eventually breed inequality

Ergo,

5. Your claim that humans are different from other beings is immoral.

I definitely agree that equal is a main pillar of morality, but there it doesn't seem like it is the main pillar of morality.

Also, I refer back to my argument in reference to

Your claim that humans are different from other beings is immoral. — TheMadFool

.

Human beings are definitely equal to each other, but are they equal to plants? Your argument does not clearly define which living organisms are equal to each other. If you do think that plants and human beings are equal, I would suggest that this goes against most moral intuitions we have. We do not think it is as immoral to stomp on and kill grass as it is to murder a human being. If you do think this, it would seem that the burden of proof is with you to show that equality as you understand it extends between species of living organisms. Your system of morality is much more defensible, in my view, if the equality you speak of extends between sentient creatures as opposed to between any living organisms.

I definitely agree that equal is a main pillar of morality, but there it doesn't seem like it is the main pillar of morality. — Joel Evans

Really? I'm not a historian but much of human struggle, which fits snugly within the framework of humanity's experience with morality, has been about equality, no? If, as you say, equality isn't the main pillar of morality then, it should be possible for morality to exist without equality. Mind you, I'm only concerned about equality/inequality that has moral implications i.e. the value of my happiness/suffering should be equal to the value of your and anyone else's happiness/suffering. Is a world that makes a claim to being a moral one compatible with my pain being more important than yours or your happiness having more value than mine?

Human beings are definitely equal to each other, but are they equal to plants? — Joel Evans

Look at what you're saying. Your words remind me of George Orwell's book, 1984 where the pigs who're in the process of establishing an oppressive totalitarian regime declare "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". FYI, the story didn't end well.

You're trying to eat the cake and have it too. You can't envision morality sans equality and that's why you say things like "human beings are definitely equal" and then you contradict yourself by saying "are they equal to plants?" suggesting, quite clearly, that you believe they're not. Please rethink your position.

If, as you say, equality isn't the main pillar of morality then, it should be possible for morality to exist without equality. — TheMadFool

This doesn't follow at all. Even if equality isn't the main pillar of morality that doesn't mean it should be possible for morality to exist without equality. I'm not sure what that means. Also, I could imagine a case where equality is immoral. If you would like I can share a case like this.

Your words remind me of George Orwell's book, 1984 where the pigs who're in the process of establishing an oppressive totalitarian regime declare "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". FYI, the story didn't end well. — TheMadFool

Just fyi, the book you are referring to is "Animal Farm" not "1984." Regardless, I'm not sure how me saying that human beings have more worth than plants (I don't think I ever explicitly said this, but it's what I was implicitly saying) makes me equivalent to Orwellian pig dictators. I am definitely not saying some people are more equal than other people. I'm not saying human beings are equal to each other and not equal to each other (which would be contradictory). I am saying human beings have more worth than other types of living organisms (i.e. plants).

You're trying to eat the cake and have it too. You can't envision morality sans equality and that's why you say things like "human beings are definitely equal" and then you contradict yourself by saying "are they equal to plants?" suggesting, quite clearly, that you believe they're not. Please rethink your position. — TheMadFool

This comment indicates that your begging the question. I am not contradicting myself by saying human beings are definitely equal (to each other) and then asking if they are equal to plants (which they are not). The only way this is contradictory is if one assumes that human beings and plants are already equal (in which case it would be contradictory to say that humans are equal to each other and not equal to plants). I do not assume this. As to your request for me to rethink my position, I'm pretty comfortable saying that human beings are more valuable than non-sentient living organisms, but I am willing to have my mind changed.

Even if equality isn't the main pillar of morality that doesn't mean it should be possible for morality to exist without equality — Joel Evans

You need to learn what pillars are.

Regardless, I'm not sure how me saying that human beings have more worth than plants (I don't think I ever explicitly said this, but it's what I was implicitly saying) makes me equivalent to Orwellian pig dictators. I am definitely not saying some people are more equal than other people — Joel Evans

You're saying "all life forms are equal but some life forms are more equal than others"

I am saying human beings have more worth than other types of living organisms (i.e. plants). — Joel Evans

Really? What's your logic?

The only way this is contradictory is if one assumes that human beings and plants are already equa — Joel Evans

Indeed it begins there but it's not an assumption ergo, not a petitio principii for the simple reason that morality is an empty concept without equality. Morality doesn't have a leg to stand on in a world where one life forms wellbeing has more value than another life form's. You may want to explain why it's not the case for you.

You need to learn what pillars are. — TheMadFool

I'm willing to learn. What do you mean by pillars?

You're saying "all life forms are equal but some life forms are more equal than others" — TheMadFool

No, I'm saying human beings (specifically) are equal to each other and of more value than other life forms (specifically plants. I make no argument about the comparative worth of humans and animals here). There is no some living organisms are more equal than others. There is simply some living organisms are equal to each other and ABOVE other living organisms.

The principle of equality is a crucial part of ethics, but to my knowledge it is commonly understood as equality between people and not between every living thing.

Really? What's your logic? — TheMadFool

1. Human beings are have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain.

2. If a living organism has complex emotions and thoughts and feels pain,then it is more valuable than those living organisms which don't have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain.

3. Therefore, Humans are more valuable than those living organisms which don't have complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain (i.e. plants).

I'm willing to learn. What do you mean by pillars? — Joel Evans

To the extent that it matters in this discussion, pillars are what holds up morality - in essence enabling the very idea of what goodness is to exist. Without the pillar of equality, morality can't exist. I hope you get what I mean.

The principle of equality is a crucial part of ethics, but to my knowledge it is commonly understood as equality between people and not between every living thing. — Joel Evans

I see. Here's a scenario for you to consider. It's plausible that an alien life form exists that's as different from humans as humans are from plants. By your logic these alien life forms should treat humans in the same way as humans treat plants.

complex emotions and thoughts and feel pain. — Joel Evans

Kindly go through what I said above.

Problem of evil
- God
No evil.

Therefore, no problem.

I see. Here's a scenario for you to consider. It's plausible that an alien life form exists that's as different from humans as humans are from plants. By your logic these alien life forms should treat humans in the same way as humans treat plants. — TheMadFool

This scenario doesn't really affect the points I have been making. If the alien life you are hypothesizing about is sentient (capable of complex emotions and thoughts and feeling pain), then it is as valuable as human life according to my argument. If the alien life is not sentient, then it is not as valuable as human life. Your "as different from humans as humans are from plants" statement is poorly defined. What do you mean by different? It seems that the degrees of difference you are talking about don't matter if we are judging value by the standard I have put forth. I have established parameters for value and equal worth, while you have not.