The Problem of Animal Suffering w/ Dr Kyle Keltz
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- I chat with Dr. Kyle Keltz about whether or not animal suffering provides an argument against an all-loving God.
Kyle's website: bkylekeltz.com
Kyle's book: Thomism and the Problem of Animal Suffering wipfandstock.c...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Homeschool Connections: homeschoolconn...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
Having lost 3 of my childhood pets within this year and having watched all three of them decline painfully and unfortunately not being there to comfort them as they passed unexpectedly, I needed this. Knowing that God created them, loved them, and called them good helped me so much with the grieving process. I pray I get to see them again one day. In a bittersweet way, I’m glad that they are in His eternal mercy and that they don’t have to suffer any longer from illness and old age.
I’m a vegan and animals are close to my heart. Thanks for exploring this issue.
Vegan here too.
My wife is giving birth to our 2nd child right now, please pray for her. God bless.
how are you right now?
Yeeeeees! I watched a video of Alex O Coner about a month ago where he addressed this argument, and I thought: "How would one respond to this?!" This is great, thank you!! 🙏😭😃
Thank you both for this great discussion. I grew hunting animals and raising them too, doing the butchering of all our meat. Being Catholic, I have contemplated these issues and have come to similar conclusions. However, Dr. Keltz you have expounded and made coherent my understanding of these issues. These are the answers I've been looking for and thanks to Matt Fradd, I'll be sure to get your book.
Thanks for doing debates like these, I’ve been looking into defending Christianity/ why it is reasonable to believe and I found that it seems for some people animal suffering is a huge obstacle. Excited to listen!
Gosh, I say, look no further than the very symbol of Christianity- the God Man-the king of the universe who created it all... hanging, tortured, nailed to a cross while as innocent of wrong-doing as a lamb. We aren’t in this mortal coil for that long people! Wake up to WHY we’re here.
@@kerrytopel9835 It is a very impactful image I agree. God is good.
I have really bad chronic pain in my whole body since 5 years, I'm on hard opioids which don't really help. God must love me so much man. Could someone pray for me? Maybe it helps I don't know.. I'm pretty desperate
You're in my prayers. Please look online for Brain & Life Magazine. About 2 years ago they published an article on opioids/opiates and pain management. The article is free to access, I don't think you even have to register. They will send the paper magazine for free if you choose to register, but it's hit or miss it each edition covers a topic of personal relevance. But definitely check out the archives online. Hopefully you'll find something helpful.
God bless you. Unite your sufferings to Christ. Just like Paul and the thorn in his side His grace is sufficient
I will pray for you
thanks guys
Will include you in my rosary tonight. May God give you strength, and relief. 🙏🙏🙏
This is the best explanation for why God allows evil and suffering that I have heard. What do you guys think?
To start off, it is important to recognize that there is a distinction between the absolute perfection of the Creator and the creaturely perfection of everything else.
The Creator alone has the superbly perfect qualities of love, wisdom, knowledge, power, etc (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Creatures however contain "creaturely perfection" and therefore are not equal to the Creator, but are perfect relative to their function and design. If I am searching for a writing utensil and find a pen, and then I say "Perfect!"; I do not mean it is indestructible or will never run out of ink. Instead I mean it is perfect for the purpose it is needed for.
In much the same way, humans were designed for a certain purpose; mainly to be God's vicegerents here on Earth to take care of it, the animals, and eachother in love and harmony. (Genesis 1:26-28)
However something went wrong and it is related the gift of free will; and the problem started in heaven before humans were even around. (John 8:44/Revelation 12:3,4) A rebellious spirit creature, Satan, did the following:
a) Called into question God's right to rule
b) Asserted all intelligent creatures did not need God to determine what was good or bad. They had the ability to decide for themselves. (More on this later)
This rebellion spread to the point that 1/3 of all heavenly creatures went to his side.
These heavenly creatures or angels/demons are highly powerful and intelligent creatures that contain consciousness and the gift of free will as well. They are also created in "God's Image" and are called sons of God like humans (Luke 3:38,Job 2:1).
The real question at this point is how could perfect creatures turn themselves evil?
The answer is that it is important to realize that Good and Evil are not necessarily 2 separate things but are instrinsically related to each other. For example darkness is the opposite of light but light DEFINES darkness. What do I mean here? The amount of light is determined by how many photons exist. The less there are, the more dark there is. The more there are, the more light there is. The photons ARE light. Darkness is just a label describing their scarcity. Darkness is only the lack of light.
In much the same way, good defines evil because evil is only the lack of good. Now with light there are obvious sources of light like the Sun or electricity. In moral terms, the Creator has endowed us with free will, which like the Sun for light, is the source of how much "good" we can maintain in our heart. Through free will we can cultivate good qualities or we can choose not to. (Both choices have side effects as this scripture shows in James 1:13-15). Ultimately though ultimate standards of good and bad come from the Creator (more on that later).
So for example, a good person can turn themselves into a thief through free will by reducing their self control to achieve a specific desire. Also a thief through free will can gain control over their desire, repent and become a good person again. Free will is a powerful, rewarding, yet dangerous gift if used unwisely.
The next question though is "Who has the right to determine what is good and what is bad?" and “Why are evil and suffering permitted and what is the issue of God's Sovereignty?”
These questions will be answered next.
The answers to these questions originate in the story of Adam and Eve. In it, humans were perfect and designed for the purpose of being fruitful, expanding the Garden of Eden, and taking care of the animals. (Genesis 1:26-28/Proverbs 12:10).
In the Garden, however, a symbol of God's sovereignty was put in place, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. From that tree alone, mankind could not eat from it. This was to remind mankind of the glory of God.
In addition, this tree would serve as a reminder to mankind that although they have free will, it was limited to the moral law that God himself set. Just as mankind had physical limitations (could not jump off a cliff and live, breathe water, etc; Jesus for example according to the Bible was a perfect person but when he lost a lot of blood, he died), so they had moral limitations. Sure, they could choose to violate physical and moral laws, but the consequences would be dire, including death itself (Genesis 2:15-17).
These limitations therefore were not to keep humanity in bondage, but to free them to their happiest potential.
However something went wrong. The rebellion in heaven had spread to Earth (Genesis 3:1-5). The rebellious angel Satan, through possession, took control over a serpent to accomplish this task.
Imagine Eve seeing a serpent talk for the first time. This must have made her wonder if perhaps this serpent, or the one speaking through it, had some secret knowledge or power that God didn't tell her.
Using this ambience deceptively, Satan raised the below points (Genesis 3:1-5):
1. God is a liar. Surely Adam and her would not die after eating the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Instead they would be free.
2. God is a tyrant who witholds good things (like the tree and secret knowledge) from his subjects.
3. God does not have the right to determine what is good and what is bad. All intelligent creatures can decide this on their own.
Adam and Eve chose to follow Satan instead of God. Now the question is how would God handle this rebellion and answer these questions?
Surely He could have removed the rebels and started over but would that have answered the questions raised? No, remember there were still millions of angels in heaven observing this rebellion. Instead He endeavored to do so the best way and what was that? Allowing the rebels time to rule independently of him to prove to all creation He alone was qualified to determine what was right and was bad.
To illustrate imagine a teacher and a rebellious student. The student is very clever and this is well known to the other students. One day while the teacher is presenting how to solve a particularly complex math problem, the student arrogantly asserts the teacher is doing it the wrong way and that there is a better and faster solution.
At this point, how should the teacher respond? If the teacher simply throws out the student, this may foster more rebellion and cause other students to doubt the teacher's authority.
Instead the teacher in the illustration decides to let the rebellious student show how HE would resolve the problem. The teacher knows the student's solution is wrong but the teacher also knows that when the student and his friends fail, all students in the class will recognize only the teacher has authority to teach the class.
Now some students no doubt believed in the teacher's authority before and continued to do so and recognize the rebellious student for who he is, a narcissitic rebel.
This is similar to what God has done. He has allowed humans and angels to govern independently of Him for a time. When things get too bad, He will intervene in Armageddon, which is when God re-establishes rule over the Earth (Revelation 21:1-4, Daniel 2:44).
Part 2
It is like a multi-milennia court case awaiting a verdict and precedent. The verdict is obvious when studying human history, but those who continue to assert their independance of God just like a lying murderer will continue to assert their innocence until they are forced by the Judge to acquiesce to the verdict through judicial discipline.
Rebellious angels and humans are in control of the Earth, not God. (I John 5:17, John 12:31, Matthew 4:1-10) This is precisely why evil and suffering are permitted and occur despite God's existence.
Now during this time there are 2 things God would not do:
1) He would not prevent the rebels from presenting their case.
If the rebels believed they had to genocide and/or unjustly persecute a set of people that is their choice. This in turn incriminates the rebels and demonstrates the consequences of living without God because without him, only the arbitrary will of society, culture, and the state exists.
If God perhaps intervened in the year 1900. Intelligent creation perhaps could have stated to God "You didn't let us master nuclear power or genetic engineering, if we did our rule would have worked." We all know the above is a farce. God is waiting for the oppurtune to intervene instead.
2) He would not help the rebels present their case.
If God were to prevent horrible earthquakes or natural disasters or to save people everytime including the rebels, they would persist in their rebellion because there are no consequences.
God would however do 3 primary things during the rebellion while setting up the moral precedent of His Sovereignty:
1) In opposition to the independant rulership of humans and angels, God would intervene on behalf of his purposes.
God for example intervened to save Peter from prison but permitted Stephen, the 1st martyr, to die. Peter went on to found many congregations and write 2 letters of scripture while Stephen served as an inspiration to resist and stand up to oppression wherever it is. Before his death, he saw a vision of the Lord. Also despite the suffering death he went through like his Savior, he experientially received his reward.
Since death is likened to sleep, when he is resurrected it will seem to him to be a blink of an eye of time.
2) God has offered a guarantee through the death and resurrection of His Son, Christ Jesus. Jesus, a perfect man proved that it was possible to be completely obedient to God until death. This opened up the opportunity by God to bless all mankind as Jesus ultimately proved Satan a liar and that perfect humankind could remain loyal unlike Adam and Eve.
3) Those who loyally support His Kingdom receive his blessings and sure hope for the future which include:
a) God will reverse all the evil that was done before the establishment of His Kingdom. No more death, suffering, or wickedness will occur under this Kingdom.
b) Those who didn't get a full chance to know God (ancient Chinese, Native Americans) will be judged by their response to common grace and their conscience.
c) Holy spirit will be rewarded in abundant supply to those suffering persecution socially, culturally, or by the state. This scripture sums this up perfectly:
"The maned young lions themselves have had little on hand and gone hungry: But as for those seeking Jehovah, they will not lack anything good." (Psalm 34:10)
It is not that God rewards people with riches, power, and fame. He rewards them with inner peace, righteousness, and the hope of eternal life. These 3 things can resist despair in the face or persecution or even death itself.
If we are inspired we can confront any problem; If we confront problems we inspire others.
God offers all of us this hope and oppurtunity to be on his side of the issue through our free will and prove Satan a liar that even imperfect humans can remain faithful unto death:
"Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me" (Proverbs 27:11)
@@kevinrhatigan5656 It appears to be implying the point that suffering is related to the true definition of evil - to tend towards non-being, to oppose the Will of God - but the actual relation is indeed not specified directly (haven't read the whole comment, tho).
@@john-paulgies4313 Yeah, OP needs to work on communicating their point without writing a whole dissertation
Animals are God's creations and a work of art. Yes, we are given many of them for us to use for nutrition, warmth etc. but it's a desecration for humans to cause needless suffering. It's a well known fact that sadistic evil committed on an animal often translates to evil committed on people. Not all children who ever tortured an animal will turn out to be a serial killer, but nearly all serial killers tortured animals as kids.
Except you don't need animals for "nutrition."
@windsongshf Why do you use the bible to justify exploiting animals (e.g. the verse where god gives humans "dominion" over animals) but not exploiting people (e.g. the verse that says you can own slaves from the nations around you)? If simply being in the bible is not enough to justify the latter, then why is it enough the justify the former?
It's as if you cherry pick ideas from your religion to reinforce preexisting beliefs.
@@crawbug8932 Are you asking me? I'm vegan.
@@riikka6125 I'm asking the original commenter
@@riikka6125 I wish I can be a Vegan Catholic.
Wow I was thinking about this just today bcoz took my dog for a visit to the vet and saw some other animals in pain there, it was hard to watch. Also that this has been a huge reason why some people question Christianity. I was thinking of posting a comment suggesting something like this, but God just gave me a surprise without me asking for this !
On factory farms calves are separated from their mother right after birth and then kept ALL THEIR LIVES in a small crate where they CAN'T MOVE at all, so their muscles don't develop and stay tender. The only time they get to walk or touch their peers is on their way to slaughter house in about four months after their birth. The fact that question of animal suffering is even a question appalls me. Seriously? People are keeping animals in absolutely horrendos and UNNATURAL conditions like that and think they aren't gonna suffer? Seriously?! Sounds more like an excuse to stuff oneself with meat two times a day every day of the year. Something that people did NOT do in Jesus's time btw. Meat was reserved for big occasions, and animals were certainly not kept they way they are now on factory farms! What's happening now is pure gluttony and abuse of living creatures to satisfy it.
Wow, didn’t ever expect to see anyone from Lubbock, TX on this channel! Go Lubbock haha!
Ùùùuù
When I first heard Alex's argument, I literally rolled my eyes in the middle of the grocery store. I could not even get myself to understand why we should care. I appreciate this episode for both helping me to understand why this is a problem that needs grappling and for furthermore showing why it's not actually a problem with any legs. This one deserves more views.
You have no experience with animals that's why you don't think of their suffering as a problem.
@@iliribardhyl7720 Hello friend. Just for the record, I care for numerous animals at my home of various species. That said, experience with animals or lack thereof would not gain anyone insight into this issue beyond an emotional response. Furthermore, if you read my initial post you will see that I was actually praising this episode partially because it did help me to “understand why it is a problem”, even if ultimately it is not a very good objection.
"I could not even get myself to understand why we should care"
About the suffering of animals? Wow, that sounds like actual sociopathy. Are you diagnosed sociopathic?
@@Jay_in_Japan Did you not read where he said he changed his mind about that?
This was a surprisingly materialist defense of suffering of animals. I think it’s reasonable to acknowledge that we are born into corruption. Things are not working as designed, so to speak. I can’t speak to catholic hagiography, but their is a multitude of stories of saints in the Orthodox tradition whose very presence changes the way in which nature operates. The best solution to animal suffering is repentance. It’s not a satisfactory answer for the materialist atheist, but it is an answer that is true.
I don't see how repentance solve this problem. The problem is how a good God could allow animal suffering. Even if our repentance could somehow remove animal suffering, the problem is why God created animal suffering in the first place.
@@CedanyTheAlaskan I am a Catholic myself, so I don't think there is a contradiction between theism and animal suffering. I was just responding to the first comment by saying that repentance was not a solution to this philosophical problem.
@@vituzui9070 "The problem is how a good God could allow animal suffering. ... why God created animal suffering in the first place.."
He didn't create the world this way... remember Eden!
But He will not intervene every time we make this fallen world our personal hell!
In the Escaton this suffering will be no more! But if you still keep this prideful attitude, you will not be there to see it....
@@anaarkadievna negative. two things:
1) If god is omniscient, by definition he knew the world would fall when he created in the first place. Therefore he created animal suffering.
2) If god is perfect he would not benefit from creating people, but chose to anyway.
This theodicy is only rationalized by dropping one or both of these two attributes.
@@creatinechris "he knew the world would fall when he created in the first place"
Sure He knew! but if you want Him to create us like robots in order to never make any mistake, would this be love? ask yourself if you could do this would you do it?
"If god is perfect he would not benefit from creating people"
This is a problem in Unitarianism or Islam... Not in Trinitarism! In the Trinity the divine Persons don't need anyone! I really don't know how Unitarians respond to this one....
If you want to understand God - the better way to do it is a family - it is necessary for 2 parents to have a child? Not really! Why have a child ? If you know that that child will commit a lot of bad stuff and in the first years you always have to look after him, why have the child anyway? But many parents chose to have the child? Ever wondered why?
Many good responses, but one point that Keltz constantly seemed to overlook is, if pain exists to avoid harm, then why does harm itself exist for animals? The classic answer is that the universe changed as a result of original sin, but it could also be argued that a universe could exist where animals are protected from the effects of human sin. In any case I think this is an important avenue to consider, since it is the most likely response from someone like Alex O'Connor.
This is a very important subject. Science and the theory of evolution did not turn Darwin against God, It was the question of animal suffering and hellfire and brimstone preachers that did.
My answer to this question: I don't know, but I fully trust God. God IS love.
Why do you fully trust god?
@@creatinechris Because his words have proven true. The wisdom presented can't be denied. One sin leads to another. E.g. Sex outside of marriage leads to destructive connections, health problems, abortions etc.
@@libertasinveritas3198 gotcha. Could some of the warnings in the Bible be helpful and not be from god?
@@creatinechris Sure - but the Bible still describes the relationship of God to humanity and has answers like e.g. the contingency argument, whereas atheism has none.
@@libertasinveritas3198 could the Bible describe a relationship between man and god, but not the correct relationship?
I enjoyed this talk. Thank you! But some knowledge of complex animals is missing in the defence I think.
There was a study showing which animals were “self aware” and of a group of animals (I may be remembering the details wrong) only the elephant looked into a mirror saw it’s own reflection, and touched it’s own face. While the other animals in this study only touched the mirror. Indicating a self awareness in the elephant.
As for the “animals don’t have languages”, I think that is ignorant. Look into the studies specifically around whales, and how some different types of whales have languages “as complex as symphonies” and how the killer whale for example displays different “culture”. Meaning different killer whales from different parts of the ocean have different languages and behave differently, and may not even be able to communicate with these other killer whales. Much like humans from different countries.
For this argument to be defended fully I think the more complex creatures (namely whales- which actually have a larger frontal lobe to brain ratio than humans) and not just some birds and dogs (which are more simple creatures) should be used as the examples.
God Bless ❤️
If you were to give a brief response to this problem using the method you described, what would that look like?
The fact that some animals recognize their image in a mirror doesn't prove they have self-awareness. This behaviour may be explained simply by saying that the animal is aware of its body. But being aware of its body doesn't require to be self-aware. Indeed, it may be simply that the animal is aware of its body "in the third person" as it were, rather than "in the first person" (i.e. as an "it" rather than an "I").
Saying that animals don't have language is a shortcut for saying they don't have language based on the cognition of logic. They have means of communication in a broader sense, but they don't have symbolic or logical thought.
On factory farms calves are separated from their mother right after birth and then kept ALL THEIR LIVES in a small crate where they CAN'T MOVE at all, so their muscles don't develop and stay tender. The only time they get to walk or touch their peers is on their way to slaughter house in about four months after their birth. The fact that question of animal suffering is even a question appalls me. Seriously? People are keeping animals in absolutely horrendos and UNNATURAL conditions like that and think they aren't gonna suffer? Seriously?! Sounds more like an excuse to stuff oneself with meat two times a day every day of the year. Something that people did NOT do in Jesus's time btw. Meat was reserved for big occasions, and animals were certainly not kept they way they are now on factory farms! What's happening now is pure gluttony and abuse of living creatures to satisfy it.
Our youngest son is a Veterinarian Tech . His vocation is admirable. ( our daughter is a nurse with her BSN ). Animals are God’s creation . All of God’s creation is suffering right now , because of sin 😞. My Jesus mercy
The key issue is this: why does a transcendent omnipotent God have to make engineering trade offs?
The engineering trade-off is a bad metaphor, I think. We have to consider what God intends for his creatures.
We may wish that the design goal was to maximize pleasure and satisfaction, making everything as easy and painless as possible (a rather crude, lazy ideal, if you ask me), but that is not the case. Creation seems much rather oriented to the fullness of beauty, to complexity and the exploration of infinite possibilities, to an ever-broadening range and depth of experience, and to an awakening to the delight of the transcendent and eternal.
God has created creatures who can know him, and I don't think we can easily 'reverse engineer' the current set-up to say it could have been done differently - especially since, for the most part, we do not know God! Humans who have approached such knowledge respond in unison that creation is good, they glorify God, they see how deeply providence and grace is at work. But we must open our eyes to see and our ears to hear. We are told that those who love, know God. So, love is the way. What makes love meaningful? God wants us to have compete joy - but how could there be complete joy without self-sacrifice and service in love? Without giving up one's own pleasure for the good of the other? Without emptying ourselves, so that God alone can full us?
If there was a way to create a universe in which a creature could know its own source - and know its source as its true goal - we can be sure God took that way. If the fullness of meaning and truth is at stake, we can't assume suffering could be excluded. Without suffering, who would strive for higher things? Those who have come through suffering know they are better for it. What was deep inside them - courage, perseverance, fortitude, humility, love - has manifested. Personally, I trust that evidence, even though so much suffering seems incomprehensibile in our present state.
Not necessarily an answer to your question, but that's what came into my head.
@@marianweigh6411
"God has created creatures who can know him, and I don't think we can easily 'reverse engineer' the current set-up to say it could have been done differently"
You said the engineering metaphor was bad, yet you repeat the same point.
In response to your last paragraph: If god is omnipotent, he should be able to instill courage, perseverance, fortitude, humility, love, etc. without suffering as a prerequisite.
@@crawbug8932 Well said
2:00 While there is much to say about the content, I only want to here address the frustration, apparently shared by Matt, that "Christians seem unwilling to feel the weight" of arguments like this. As a Christian seemingly in some form of deconversion, I was hopeful for a sensitive, thoughtful discussion of the topic, responsive to some of the weighty, painful issues it raises.
Instead, at 5:23 I get some sort of bizarre reveling in one of the more horrific images of the wildfires in Australia. If not celebratory, the attitude is at best glib about the horror implied by that image, and presenting it without warning...and with such seeming joy...is not feeling the weight of the issue and quite disappointing.
The other place this showed up to excess was in Dr. Keltz's chuckling at those who don't feel pain. At 18:41 he chuckles at the fact this poor child would chew her fingers. While perhaps a good argument in defense of pain, it says nothing about suffering - and to laugh at such misfortune is certainly being "Unwilling to feel the weight" of that suffering. Disappointing.
Still I couldn't comprehend the purpose of my cat's suffering before his death. What I know is I too suffered because of the experience and also the after part. Perhaps that's the only connection I see. I was hoping I would see the light in this.
Saint Irenaeus says that animals will all be restored to life when Christ restores the universe to its pristine condition at the end of time. He says all animals will be restored completely and be without violence or suffering. I think it is quite probable that the suffering they had in their former life, before the restoration of all things by Christ, will be "wiped away", as Christ promises to wipe away all such evils and sufferings from the entire universe He created, and so do not worry, your poor pet which suffered loss because the Adamic sin pervaded the whole universe, will, in the end, be restored, as Saint Irenaeus says. That misery caused by the Adamic sin will no longer touch any created being.
What I am saying is, your beloved pet, along with all other living things, will have even the memory of suffering "wiped away" in the end.
@@kaiserdamasus1978 Thank you so much! I truly appreciate this.
@@kaiserdamasus1978 That nice and all, but animals in their trillions still suffer in the meantime. And doesn't that seem unjust, to allow animals to suffer for the sins of humans? What loving God would do that?
@@Jay_in_Japan That would be my concern as well. One response could be that while animals suffer temporarily, their joy in the after-life will be eternal. This would make what they experience now nothing compared to eternity, but doesn't necessarily explain the necessity of the current suffering.
I was just thinking about congenital insensitivity to pain! Pain allows us to live. Those kids don’t survive for long :(
Why isn't animal suffering caused by Original Sin, which damaged all of creation.
Maybe because animals were suffering long before man originally sinned.
@@wfbane they weren't. God did not build anything for suffering. Original Sin pervaded the entire created realm, and thus brought about all natural and moral evils.
@@kaiserdamasus1978 Then why did God, create the Tree, and why did God ALLOWED the Serpen 🐍 to ENTER the Garden of Eden?
I never understand these arguments. If there’s a God he should do this or take this bad thing away etc. There’s no end to the “more perfect worlds” scenarios.
Heaven is the end of the scenarios and it’s what people long for but it’s not obvious that there is a God to some people that struggle with this philosophical idea (and most likely struggle with it on a very personal/intimate way).
We would die from infections and injuries much easier without the pain alarm system.
Agreed. CS Lewis describes your point in his book The Problem of Pain - which is not referred to in this interview but it has a chapter on animal suffering. In short to your point, CS Lewis states we can argue an innumerable utopias and what ifs. It doesnt take you closer to the truth or deeper understanding.
@@EcstaticTemporality Also it seems to do is avoid the faults the the world we have. Lewis is right.
@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 Are you saying that God is limited in his creative ability? If he can only create beings who must suffer to avoid infections & injuries?
Yoo that was my Professor at Texas Tech last year haha! 😅😎🙏👍🫡
Have you read “Where the Red Fern Grows?”
Animals demonstrate compassion and the ability to love beyond instinct. It was not instinct for those hounds to run and fight another animal (puma). They stood their ground to save the one they love. Costing one of the hounds his life- as Christ said, there’s no greater love. Aquinas teaches love is willing the good of the other as other. Those hounds remember the compassion of their human friend, not by association but love. They showed self-awareness. Little Ann stayed with her fallen friend’s burial site. That animal felt grief, and there’s was no utility to it. We all know or heard of real cases like this, this isnt mere fiction.
(Now that is not to say all animals will act likewise as not all human make use of their free will and their gift the same way.)
How many dogs or other animals give their lives to defend children or elderly from attack - both human or other animals, or when a smart canine leaves a home to stop a car and lead a cop or person to their unconscious friend? Animals can recognize pain, life threatening pain, and problem solve - not for a reward for a stunt or food from their master but because animals love us. Why find this so strange when their creator too is nothing but love?
Sometimes the intellect misses or cant see the greater logic. That said, I think this interview gave insightful commentary.
It is so important to recognize animals can love beyond instinct.
I agree and think that fears of anthropomorphism have a tendency to reduce our appreciation of how much non human animals have in common with us
That was very intuitive, insightful. Thanks
You know, I can program a robot to be selfless and perform sacrificial love without it being alive. I can also add some functions to make it look like it's in pain whenever that robot interacts with something painful.
I get your way of thinking, but I'm still not sure that you can prove that animals have a will to love, or it just performs something that it's programmed to do. I mean, read this verse from Proverbs 6:6
"Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!"
The Bible basically says that the ant is wiser than some humans, but that doesn't make the ants are capable to be like humans.
Compassion doesn't require reason or free will, nor even personal self awarness. Therefore the fact that animals show this kind of affection doesn't prove they have those three higher functions that Dr. Keltz talks about. And it certainly doesn't prove they have love in a Christian sense. Love in a Christian sense is charity, which is an act of the will, and the will is the intellectual appetite. Loving in this sense means wanting the good of someone. Animals cannot love in this higher form since they don't have a will. They only have lower order desires and appetites, which may include affection and compassion.
So glad you did this podcast...thank you and God bless you both!
Animals, at least mammals, are clearly self-aware and conscious. They even dream, which is a purely mentally conscious state. Animal cruelty is certainly a sin. Whether animals are restored in the end or not we don't know, but Saint Irenaeus says clearly all animals shall be restored to life at the return of Christ, and that they will all be totally docile.
What a great topic! this is one of the issues that I'm the most interested in as a Catholic because when I was far away from God the only thing that kept me in check with at least a tiny bit of acceptance of morality was animal ethics... A few books have been written about the topic in the context of world religions and even less have been made with a catholic perspective but the Bible already has a bunch to say about this... Personally as a vegan I get a lot of hate from other vegans because I oppose antispeciesism and the whole Peter Singer craze... Anyway looking forward for your talk and hoping that it will be well informed!
God has placed everyone and everything in His creation (human and animal) on a scale of suffering, and as God, He reserves the right to move us _up_ or _down_ that scale of suffering as far as He wants, for as long as He wants.
For He is not only the Creator, but also the _Sustainer_ of all things not Himself, and as such He can end any and all life _whenever_ and _however_ He chooses.
He is not accountable to us; it is we who are accountable to _Him._
And regarding animal suffering, how do we know all animals don’t go to Heaven and eternal bliss when they die? Animals are not moral agents. No animal has ever sinned, therefore no animal needs to be forgiven. So their suffering, like ours, is temporary.
Just sayin’.
God made himself accountable to us by giving us holy scriptures because he is now bound to his words. I say this because let's say God decides to do all things contrary to his promises in the holy books then he's no longer a just God but a liar.
That's fine and all, you can say he's not accountable to anyone, but you can't claim to be a loving god and then create beings who experience immense, unnecessary suffering. Unless you completely redefine "loving" to include sadism, but you're not willing to deal with the consequences of that.
Excellent talk. It's an issue I've always thought of as a catholic. I felt the interviewer was rushing a bit from the 50 min mark. I could have listened to that gentleman for another hour.
This is just the question "if God is so good then why does He permit suffering" but with more bells and whistles. Like come on man we've been over this!
Pain is an alarm system. This is how you know something is wrong. It also can make you scream so others can help you.
Old-age suffering is being chosen by humankind. Without the protections humans have created, the weaker humans would become lion food and suffer a lot less. We choose to live long lives and thus suffer more. That is a part of free will, human design, not necessarily God's design. 💁♀️
@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 I think being eaten by a lion would involve a ton of suffering lol. I'll take dying from old age over being mauled to death by a lion thank you very much. Also, you're discounting the mental anguish that having family members killed by lions would cause. Imagine a child of yours being killed by a lion.. and how on earth is it not God's design?? You're just cherry picking what can be labelled God's design or not. Did your God not have foresight when creating the universe???
@@konyvnyelv. Pain is not about getting one to heaven. It is an alarm system to show something is wrong. That's the physical reality. Spiritual reality may be different depending on how we react to pain and pain in others.
@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 Why does god allow free will in cases where it will likely lead to suffering? Why not allow free will (which is a philosophically and scientifically incoherent concept) only in cases where it does not lead to suffering? It's like lighting a firework and handing it to a toddler: you'd have to be incredibly naive to think nothing will go wrong. God hands every human who has ever existed hundreds of fireworks over the course of their lifetime.
@@crawbug8932 It's the way it is. I wish he would squash the evil ones like ants. 👢
What about dolphins allegedly experiencinging depression? Can anyone speak to that as it relates to not knowing they're experiencing pain? How do we know dolphins experience this?
This is just a backwards view of animals presented here. The guest attempts to equalize all animals when there are clear differences between dolphins and mosquitoes.
it's a duty of Catholics to get up to date on the nature of animals. Animals do suffer, They can conceptualize the future (A dog anticipates the owners arrival etc...). They even have dreams and nightmares.
I mean this is obvious to anyone that has owned a dog. It does indeed have a "personality". It's not just an automaton. Clueless folks will say well the dog was trained that way or something, but then forget that humans can also be trained.
Ignorance is the issue here and that goes for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Wait.... Feeling pain is unpleasant, like feeling less pleasure than before?? Hmmm so who was that guy who asked: Why don't we just feel less pleasure rather than suffer?
Great interview with an excellent guest.
Thank you for this episode, I'm glad you touched this topic.
I feel that you discussed only the problem of pain (as one of the senses) for a long time - as it was the main topic, maybe a response to another video (Alex's video?) that I didn't watch. I expected also some explanation for the "causes" - like in your example with burnt kangaroo, not only why it feels pain (and is it for better or for worse), but also why it suffers from - let's say - natural causes at all. I know it's a wide and different problem, along with many human diseases that we don't know the reason for, but without mentioning it I feel that your talk strayed into just one side path (and is less valuable as a stand-alone video).
Pain is an alarm system that lets you know something is wrong. We are perfectly designed. It can also make one scream alerting others that you need help or make you pray for help. Prolonged suffering is a choice. Predators look designed to shorten suffering times. God is merciful. When we choose to struggle into old-age that is our free will not necessarily God's design, so can't blame God for our choices. Naturally the weaker humans would become lion food without all the safety protections we have put up.
Just because we do not like something does not make it evil. Pain is good. It serves an excellent purpose.
@@konyvnyelv. It always has a purpose to indicate something is wrong.
"Prolonged suffering is a choice"
Oh boy. I'll let that statement speak for itself.
"Predators look designed to shorten suffering times"
How much time have you spent in the wild? Not much, evidently.
It is good for Christians to discuss this stuff. But I must say that every time I hear a new atheist speak on these matters it makes me gag. It is not the fact that he is asking questions, but the fact that he does not have any respect for his opponent. He as an atheist does not get to say what Christianity's biggest problem is; not only because he is not part of that community, but also because he does not speak for all atheists. Such statements are ridiculously pretentious and arrogant to the core. The new atheists try and come across so smart, as if they are, from the brilliance of their higher intellects, bringing to the table issues and ideas that have never been conceived of before. In reality, if they had just done a tad bit of research, they would have at least seen that there is not one idea that has never been addressed or discussed.
And then there's people as prideful as you, who think they have the answers and that since everything's been discussed before, there's nothing to discuss
@@Jay_in_Japan It seems you have mistaken my comment for another.
At 23:20, the gentleman talks about an interesting argument: Why, instead of inflicting pain, wouldn't God just "decrease" our level of pleasure ? We'd be in a constant state of pleasure, and when something bad would happen to us, that information would be conveyed by a decrease in pleasure.
Now here's the thing: pain is supposed to be a strong stimulus.
Now we can imagine that the decrease in pleasure would create a stimulus because of the discomfort created.
Wether:
1. The stimulus triggered by that discomfort would be strong enough to emulate the level of the pain stimulus
Or 2. It wouldn't be strong enough
If it isn't strong enough, then it's suboptimal and pain would do a better job.
If the loss of pleasure creates discomfort so high it can stimulate you in the same way pain would do it ... Then that's what it would be: pain.
By the way, the "decrease in pleasure" already exists when we need a softer stimulus: think about the loss of pleasure you get when you get from sitting to standing up. Your body is sending you the information that you are now in a position that is wasting more energy. It encourages you to save that energy through a soft stimulus: The loss of comfort experienced by the changing of your position.
Another thing to note is that with the way the human brain is constructed, it is not possible to be in a perpetual state of pleasure. Pleasure is a change, it's a delta, it's going from 0 to 1. It is not a state of stability. When using a drug to engineer artificial pleasure, the brain rapidly gets used to it. To create the same amount of pleasure. more drug is required. If we keep increasing the doses, the brain fries.
Pain on the part of part of animals isn’t that bad in the grand scheme of problems in this life. They don’t undergo spiritual suffering, they never become unhappy, with all of it’s manifestations evident in human beings, which is much more significant and worse, and is ultimately resultant of original sin. Animals frankly appear content in themselves, because they aren’t separated from God and His Will like humans.
This is such a heartless perspective. Physical and psychological pain absolutely causes animals to be unhappy. Animal pain may not be as complex or severe as ours. Yet just as getting your finger slammed in the car door is nothing compared to having cancer, getting your finger slammed in the car door is seriously painful in its own right. The existence of complex pain does not negate the real suffering and trauma of other injuries.
Basically, animals are irrelevant because your religion says so?
@@annaelizabeth5471 Consider that some animals may even have a _higher_ sense of pain than we do... For example, hawks have a higher sense of sight, dogs have a higher sense of hearing, so who's to say that e.g. pigs don't have a higher sense of pain?
Just think of the moral implications if that's the case...
Lucas, have you ever owned a pet dog?
Barely anyone is trying to answer it.
Thank you.
Love to see the seeds of Jonathan Pageau and Matt's friendship! Nice shirt!
Very interesting synopsis. This is a short follow-up to my comment left prior to the Livestream. In that comment I quickly went over a long tradition that's rooted in theology. While that theology doesn't strictly apply to this defense, it did become more clear to me as I listened to this argument. I had a few "Ah ha!" moments from it.
One "Ah ha!" recalls Cesar Milan's maxim, "For Dog there is no past, there is only Now." It's the same with other animals, too.
So I suppose when the rescue cat recognized, "You go teep now," he wasn't thinking that he hadn't slept in 2 days, he was just thinking sleep sounded like a really good thing at that moment. He was exhausted from 2 days of seizures, but at that moment he was probably only aware that he was with my son and me, and he wanted to sleep.
One way or the other, we can't really imagine the nature of animal consciousness.
Sure you can. Imagine a severely mentally handicapped human or what you feel like when you're half awake.
That they suffer is undeniable, however. The dog that's been abused and cowers in fear when someone goes to pet him- he doesn't suffer?
This was great. Could only get better with a conversation/debate between Alex O'Connor and Dr. Keltz.
Loved it! Thanks guys!
Did you set the date correctly?
August 9th?
Haha yep
@@PintsWithAquinas that's a long time to wait 0.o
The date changed to July 6th
I think what everyone really wants to know here is where Matt got his dope shirt.
Yes. Matt hurry up and answer!
Jonathan Pageau's merch
@@juradoalejandro5261 yes 👍 Jonathan Pageau. Symbolic World
So you totally ignore the animal aspect of man.
Of course they do, they believe humans have souls which makes humans more important.
@@creatinechris and therefore animals are irrelevant
@@gerardt3284 correct. Now what evidence do you have that humans have souls?
Can you please get Trent Dougherty on, another Catholic that seeks to resolve the problem of animal suffering for theism.
As for the beginning, I'm not dismissive of counter arguments from atheists that mention the problem of evil or suffering because I don't like arguments against my view or I'm afraid my worldview will collapse. Everyone has biases including me, but more suited explanation for me personally is that I don't feel such weight from argument from evil because I rely on stoic practices in my every day life.
I get why people wrestle with it and you can whine all day and convince other people, but I'm just unfased by it.
There are also arguments against classical theism, but since I don't understand them, I can't really evaluate them.
So your "Stoicism" is reason enough for you to disregard animal suffering? I don't _think_ that's what you meant, or at least I _hope_ that's not what you meant
This was an amazing show 🖒
¡Viva Cristo Rey y la Virgen de los ángeles!
God could be courages. What do you call the crucifixion? If not courageous? God took human flesh and so he was able to have these virtues you say he can’t have. God doesn’t need to have sex because he’s perfect love and in that total perfection he begot the son. The love that the father and son share, is what we call the Holy Spirit. Humans need sex while God does not. This is another reason, that while in the marital act, we participate in God’s love.
To be fair, I understood the point about God not having sex is that He doesn't have to control lustful urges in the way that humans do.
Was this live streamed a few months ago?
The only reason why this is still a topic is because new atheists can't stop recycling the same bullcrap!
True! The same atheists who have no problem with abortion!
I thought it was because it shines a light on a major character flaw of your god?
@@kevinrhatigan5656 Vegans are HYPOCRITES. They are NOT okay with Animal Suffering and I agree with them on that, but they are okay with Abortion.
@@kevinrhatigan5656 You don't see the problem in not having an answer? The fact that suffering animals flies directly in the face of the idea of a loving God?
This is so good.
In the day of Adam and eve, Man bear 🐻 lion 🦁 and sheep 🐑 slept to together.
And that’s how we got Man Bear Pig
@@creatinechris God created all things we're not supposed to eat each other you really think God created animals for us to eat, are each other are you mad man of course he did not we took knowledge without having wisdom and now look where we're at God bless you have a nice evening
@@christopherdowns8365 Gotcha. So are you saying because of Adam and Eve's sin we eat animals?
@@creatinechris no , God wanted us to be caregivers to the animals the trees fish birds and everything and we made a mistake. So today we have people who go out and help animals who have been hurt bravo to them they're actually doing what we're meant to do. No God bless them we should always take care of those who can't take care of themselves. And God bless you brother.
And yes the trees the fruit bearing trees and plants stepped up that we may not have to eat each other and kill each other that we would be vegetarian and pick the fruit and vegetables when the trees and the plants were ready for us to to pick them we communicate together.
God it's not stupid he knows .you see the fear in the eyes of an animal or human being when they' being killed. God is not the spirit of fear.
Love the Jonathan Pageau shirt
ohh yess
Should be interesting, maybe get Earthling Ed on the show.
God DID create a world where animals don’t suffer. Originally, the world was perfect. Plants, animals, people and all living and non-living things were created in perfect balance with themselves and each other to the extent that entropy itself did not exist. In that world, nothing and no one suffered.
What happened? Adam and Eve fell. How did we forget that they were both intrinsically connected to the earth itself. They were so connected that when they fell, all of creation fell with them. It’s not just Adam and Eve who began to experience entropy, but all of creation…both living and non-living.
You’ll recall that the Bible speaks of the wages of sin. We have badly underestimated those wages. It is not just we who suffer damage when we sin (commit an act that puts us even further out of balance with God, each other and the universe), but all of creation. Why? Because of our connection. We are not only made of the same stuff, we have a spiritual connection such that the wages of our sins are visited upon the rest of creation. Though a small sin has a small effect, the weight of the entire history of sin is a giant tidal wave of harm the size of which we can’t begin to imagine. It increases the effects of entropy, which includes both human and animal suffering, disease and death, and sweeps away everything before it (the living and non-living, the innocent, the just and unjust).
God did not create a world in which animals suffer…WE DID. The problem is our doing. This fact grieves God very much. He loves every part of His creation, after all, especially us!
Animal suffering isn’t the biggest problem with Christianity. It’s the result of a great lack of obedience to God. As we grow worse, the problem grows worse in ways that can’t easily be discussed on YT.
It’s not hopeless, however. Because God is loving, he created some work arounds to help His creation. Pain and suffering, for example, can and do serve a purpose. Even the fawn in the forest that suffered for 3 days does since its body can feed a multitude of other animals. The fawn’s death insures the life of many others. As Dr. Keltz stated, suffering also has a beneficial role. The ability to feel pain (whether physical, emotional or spiritual) helps creatures avoid a multitude of harmful situations and behaviors.
God also provided the means for us to return to a state of balance and unity with Him through the gift of His Son, Jesus. Because He is infinitely dear to the Father, His sacrifice was able to pay an infinite price on behalf those who repent, love and follow Him. At some point He will also return and set things right, part of which involves creating a NEW heavens and NEW earth as they were originally meant to be. In that world, which does include animals, there will be no more suffering or death.
Feel the weight of the argument....
Matt can you Please review Bishop Barrons latest video on abortion “pro abortion politicians can we actually dialogue “......I watched it and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing from a so called Shepherd .......good to get on Fr Mike Schmitz to review as well
@@kevinrhatigan5656 we can’t comment or dialogue on his false teaching so it’s appropriate that he’s not made accountable so he turns off his comments field for this video....truly a false Shepherd.....Barron you hypocrite you claim in your video about abortion that you want to dialogue.......yet 1. You turn the comments section off so people can not reply to your fallen ideology where you want to trade off early term abortion with late term abortion NO all abortion no matter at what stage is MURDER......there is no way we can as Catholics can make a deal with the devils who support abortion as a so you called Bishop of the Catholic Church...there is no middle ground it’s WRONG ...FULL STOP go preach that you wolf in sheep’s clothing....2. You claim you want to dialogue yet you won’t dialogue with members of your own church like Taylor Marshall, Tim Gordon, John Henery Western....hypocrite Barron
@@kevinrhatigan5656 you might want to reconsider what Catholics believe in
Timothy Gordon spoke on it. I no longer pay attention to anything Baron says. Sad guy trying to stay on the fence.
@@kevinrhatigan5656 the immediate problem I detected is that when the Bishop and I were children (we're the same age), abortion wasn't "The Law of the Land." The SCOTUS made it so when he and I were about 12 years old, yet there it was on the 6 O'Clock News. Maybe he didn't notice it at the time, but I was at the age where I was looking forward to being a mother some day so it had a hard-hitting impact on me to think that any woman would want to purposely end her pregnancy. At the time, the public argument on television and in print said legal abortion is safer, and that it's performed only rarely in cases where women found themselves in predicaments, either because they were unwed or because they had a number of older children and couldn't afford another.
If at that time anyone would have advocated partial birth abortions, the reaction in all but psychopaths would have been horror - and that was before ultrasound. If anyone had gone further and suggested that a baby that survived an abortion attempt should be left to die, the reaction would have been outrage. So they bided their time and waited until the public was desensitized to such horror and senseless, barbaric cruelty.
Yet Bishop Barron suggested that as the starting point for [gentle] dialogue with self-proclaimed Catholic politicians. Presumably those politicians are intelligent enough to understand the reasoning of the Church's teaching, yet they reject it outright without doubting their own advocacy for killing unborn and newborn babies.
Those politicians formed their views willfully. They didn't just haphazardly get seduced into accepting the killing of newborn babies. Politicians like Governor Cuomo of New York led the push to killing newborns, and celebrated it, with full and willful knowledge of what he was doing.
There's no dialogue with such obstinacy.
@@kimfleury isnt it amazing how simple the TRUTH is ........our false and misleading Shepherds would do well to practice teaching, preaching and telling the TRUTH at all times.....BRAVO! ....KA Fleury
35 minutes in this is extremely unconvincing. Sorry. We are saying god is infinite and infinitely perfect, but such a bad designer he can't relieve unnecessary animal suffering. This is , lets remember - crucially - a living being that according to Aquinas has no free will and no shot at redemption or an afterlife. THIS is the bit that makes it not work and you haven't even mentioned it. So whilst your argument might work for humans with free will, this is the crux. You should have started with it.
Yeah, they repeatedly dodge into human behavior. Even if we grant that humans need pain (dubious, but granted), and equate pain with suffering (again, dubious), that says nothing about why animals need pain. Given that, on the Thomistic view, they're functionally automata, there's no reason they need to suffer.
If the creature is doing what it was designed for, then it's perfect.... You can't say that the camera is not perfect because it is not able to communicate with others! That would be stupid because it wasn't designed for that..... Let's get back to your point. He can not reduce( unnecessary) suffering. question: Who decides that it is unnecessary.... Who decides the purpose of its manufacture?
Was it established whether or not this gentleman has had any pets?
He might be thinking of animal pain before man, before sin entered the world. But we have evidence of animals eating other animals, and that's the mechanism of evolution. Also God said to Eve after the Fall: "I shall increase your pain in child-bearing," so there was pain in the world. But animals and man seem to have chemicals which are released when in danger which lessen pain.
One thing to note is that these chemicals aren't developed yet in the unborn fetus.
I’m like, at 56:27 minutes into the video.
I wanted to comment about animals not going to Heaven or being like small children who die before having a chance to be good or bad. I like that second one because I don’t think God would create life, and then go backwards once it dies, but I think, still, there’s an issue with it because don’t forget: in the Bible, Jesus permited demons to enter into animals. That must mean something.
Cool
I still don't understand why we should think that God wouldn't allow suffering.
The issue, in my opinion, only arises from poor logic. It is an extremely effective emotional argument, playing to our empathy in our affluent culture, but it is a poor argument as far as logicality goes. This is because a potential effect does not directly contradict the existence of something unless the existence of something necessarily implies the effect does not exist. (In formal terms, one might say, Assume A. A->B. B=/B. ^ A=/A) If one were to write out a formal proof, one would have to show that for God to exist, suffering must not. If suffering then does exist, as it seems to, then a true proof by contradiction would occur, and you could say so long as suffering exists as assumed, God does not. But the argument mostly just goes, God should make animals happier, they aren't happier, therefore God isn't real. In a strict sense, the logic doesn't follow.
Still, it is clearly a powerful apologetic argument for atheism, even if it is logically useless.
Because if you accept omnibenevolence as an attribute for god, unnecessary suffering should cause a theist cognitive dissonance. Especially when they know an all powerful god could have made a world with out suffering.
@@creatinechris For this to be formally logical, one has to show that it logically follows that the effects of a good entity cannot be negative in any way, or as I put it, A must necessarily imply B (A->B in formal terms.) The weakness of the argument from evil is it at most disproves a single certain concept of God if, and only if, you accept its presuppositions about the nature of evil, suffering, good, and their relation to what you presuppose to be God. The independent existence of an entity which we might call God is, as the term implies, independent of its effects.
The concept of God is an almost unfalsifiable one, for a variety of reasons. To actually disprove such an entity, you would need positive proof of the self-sufficiency of a closed system, such as the closed system we call the universe. The failure to produce such a positive proof, of course, does not imply the Christian God is this seemingly necessary entity. But it does imply the necessity of something external to the closed system from which the closed system is derived. And this is just as true in the physically infeasible multiverse scenario which some physicists really like. The closed system you are looking at is simply a larger one, encompassing multiple things which we have previously called universes. But the self-sufficiency of that system still must be shown to disprove the general concept of God. This simply hasn't been done. I don't think it can.
So you are left with a different problem, in my opinion. If there is an entity God, what is its relation with the world. That is a much more difficult question to answer.
@@josephmoya5098 do you believe a god exists?
@@creatinechrisThis supposes that goodness and suffering must be mutually exclusive. In the Easter 'Exultet' the phrase is sung, 'oh happy fault', of Adam. In Eden, death remained a possibilty. Adam's sin necessitated Redemption and thus the victory over death for those of us who choose the Cross.
I don't think this whole theme takes so much of philosophical debate. Animals have become a part of our sinful world and this or another way they pay price for that. The original sin and all its consequences came through us, yet automatically has spoiled all of original wonderful creation. And we still walk in our own will given by God so the destruction continues. The ideal state of creation was in Eden and will be recovered on the New Earth, in between is the powerful human with authority given by God to take care of this earth. Plagues, disasters and diseases are never just a blind fate. Somewhere and somehow they are caused by us. the whole creation is waiting for the sons of God to release it from pain, the Bible says. "For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed" Romans 8:19
I love steak
bruh
This society makes problems out of nothing. I am yet to meet a farmer who purposely and unnecesarily causes pain to his livestock.
Not all animals are livestock
Look into cafos. Sheer evil.
You haven't met their farm hands then. Or ever seen undercover footage of what some of them do to animals
I’ll worry about animals when no more unborn babies are murdered.
Will you also ignore child abuse until child murder is eradicated? If we only focus on the worst evils, we condone real, other evils. We can prioritize fighting the worst evils, but we should never condone lesser evils until larger evils are eradicated.
Eh, that’s a false dichotomy. You can definitely be worried about both, even if one is more significant than the other.
@@annaelizabeth5471 Well said. I worry about Judy here
I need @CosmicSkeptic to watch this
Barely anyone is trying to answer it.