If there were no God


Don’t think I’m labelling carnivorous animals at all. I’m labelling as less than absolutely good the creator who fashioned a system that depends on painful killing in order to continue.


Is that something you might want to talk about?


Then you and the supposed god may differ on what is “good”.

Is that really all that surprising?


It would certainly render this discussion pointless. And it would render any human description of God as goodness equally pointless. It would mean it would be equally meaningful to describe Him as absolute evil, or as absolutely a bit of this and a bit of that.


You do understand that you are on a Catholic website, which is about the man dying on the cross.

All the pain in the universe ultimately is that felt by one person, since we are all individual beings in ourselves and it is not additive. That said it does increase our personal suffering to see the great hurt that is the world. Again, the belief is that we got ourselves into this situation placing ourselves rather than God at the centre of our being in the world, our existence. In doing so we cut ourselves off from eternal Goodness, and thereby suffer. Jesus took all that upon Himself, all the pain anyone may experience, all the sin on the cross. In dying and through His resurrection, we all as one humanity are brought to a new eternal life. The story ends well.

Even to nonChristians it is clear that the greatest goods are in the overcoming. Zero pain and suffering = no courage and no love.


We did not get animal life into this situation.


I believe we did.


Not particularly, I’ve shared most of it. My struggle caused me to partake in an intense study of apologetics, and the history of Christianity. The more I learned, the more questions I had. The answers given were not satisfying to me. Continued study only led me down a path of gradual doubt until the plausibility became virtually nil to me.


Sophia - Not so - infinity and eternity are ‘always’ - ‘time’, as within the bounds of the created physical and temporal universe is NOT ‘always’, by the very nature of it’s own description.


…or your absolute moral of “all pain is bad” on which you base your critique might be wrong.

Ever heard of the folks who can’t feel pain and all the injuries they sustain as a result?

That alone is sufficient to break your absolute, here.


I don’t think one can study too much, but we definitely can pray too little.


Yes, pain is very useful … in a universe in which God has designed pain as a danger sign and warning sign, rather than any alternative He might have come up with. And He came up with animal life that cannot survive without killing other animal life. Even I can think of a way that could have been avoided.


Vegetation does not feel pain. It can grow substitutes for its injured or removed parts. The simple being called planaria can regrow its fullness, even if it is sliced into small parts. Vastly superior to the pain-is-needed as a warning mechanism.

  1. What do you mean by “absolute goodness”?

  2. Why is pain contrary to goodness?


Yes, non-christians should be respectful to christians and their beliefs on their own website especially. But just know that many non-christians do not see the above scenario as a moral proposition. As Hitch once stated, vicarious redemption in the form of scapegoating should not be considered a moral act:

“The concept is that a person can throw their sins onto someone else. Vicarious redemption means that the actual sin, the responsibility, the guilt, the spiritual presence of a wrong-doing, can somehow be thrust upon another person, and the sinner is then completely redeemed and made clean. This does not just mean the person receiving the sin (Jesus, in this case) will just pay our debt, but serve the sentence, in other words, which in and of itself is unjust.”

This is an immoral construct, created in ancient times to appease to the masses. In those days sacrifices (human and animal) were normal. It shouldn’t be surprising that is the method that was contrived by those people for their savior.


That means a universe designed so that failings in one species result in pain and suffering for other species. An absolutely good creator would have avoided a design with that consequence.


Ever hit a deer hit a deer with your car?

I have. Three times.

Something’s got to limit their population besides my truck.

Predation where the wolf also gets sustenance from the killing seems to be a pretty “good” system to me.


And He came up with animal life that cannot survive without killing other animal life. Even I can think of a way that could have been avoided.

Do tell.

And don’t forget to explain all of God’s goals and purposes in creating the Universe as He now did, and how he could obtain those same ends in your proposed Universe.


By absolute goodness I mean goodness without alloy.

Pain is not contrary to goodness. The creation of a universe in which pain is suffered as a consequence of life is an act contrary to absolute goodness.


Vegitation isn’t very mobile. Ergo its need for a fast warning mechanism like pain is substantially curtailed.

But again, no one on your team has sufficiently proven that pain is objectively bad, which you kinda-sorta need to do in order to rationally proceed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.