Predatory animals

Yoni, you didn't ask for my opinion, and yet I'll express it. In my opinion, the rabbi's answer is clearly inadequate to this question. A dry, philosophical justification for a bloodbath and a tragedy that has been going on every day for millions of years. Try to be honest with yourself and think about whether this answer satisfies you. In my opinion, if you believe in God, and are honest with yourself, there is no escape from admitting that he is a wicked evil (at least by your standards). It's becoming more comfortable to believe that there is indeed no one to blame for this terrible mechanism.

Q, to make such a claim you first have to think that a better world is logically possible (without losing things that would make it even worse). What is written in the answer above is that there is no reason to think that it is logically possible. If it is not logically possible, then your claim is meaningless nonsense.

I know Danny, I understand the rabbi's excuse. To cripple God and claim that he had no choice but to create such a cruel world. If he still had a choice, and he chose to create this world (instead of not creating anything), then he is guilty. In any case, is this really the God you believe in? A cripple who is incapable of creating a good world? This is certainly not the God that most of Judaism believes in (in fact, it seems that what he did in Genesis Chapter 1 is precisely to create a good world, it's just not clear why he also put a serpent and a tree of knowledge there), and in my opinion the whole excuse is forced and narrow (but believe what you want, of course).

that,
If anything, it's to cripple yourself, not God.
The claim is that you are saying things that don't make sense (assuming there is a logical contradiction in them), and complaining without understanding what.
In other words, for a reason we don't know, this is the best option in the world, and the very fact that we ask and wonder is short-sighted. I don't think this goes beyond what "most Judaism believes" (I would say this is the classic answer).
That certainly makes more sense than the option you brought up (about him being evil. Which is really logical nonsense).

By the way, in Genesis it really was a world that did not exist.

Q, it seems you didn't understand what I said.
I explained that creating a world with rigid laws that brings about all the results of our world without the bad parts is like creating a round triangle (=creating a triangle only without the corners). Therefore, anyone who cannot do this is not a cripple. It is impossible to do such a thing because it does not exist at all and is not defined. For example, can God, the Almighty, create a rigid world that operates in a non-rigid manner? And if not – is that why He is a cripple?

Besides, if we think a little, we'll realize that it's not that cruel. Apparently, animals don't have a consciousness that feels suffering at a high level, and they usually die quickly (and no animal is sad after losing a relative).

And when an animal eats another dead animal, it's not cruel at all and there's no suffering and/or malice on anyone's part in it. Indeed, to an ideological vegan it may seem that way at first glance, but the reasonable person understands that this is the way of the world and there's no problem with it.

True, and I was just pointing out that this limitation is something you see in God, but it seems that most rabbis throughout the ages actually thought that God could certainly create a better world, and the fact that they talked about the next world. This whole idea that it is logically impossible to create a better world seems ridiculous to me. You can insist that the burden of proof is on me (although I would say that this is actually a pretty intuitive statement, that if you asked any man on the street if God could create a better world, he would answer yes), but I think it should be clear to any person who has any respect for the suffering of others that this is nothing more than dishonest philosophizing. I apologize for the harshness, I said what I think, without any particular pretension to convince anyone of my position.
Dude, mammals definitely feel suffering at a high level, and I honestly can't imagine anything scarier than a lion chasing you and grabbing you. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Go watch National Geographic and hear their screams, and then say that it's not cruel.
And of course a mother would be sad when her son dies! Why do you think they protect them with their bodies?

This is not true here either. For generations, people have spoken of a "world to come" that can only come after this world.
No one spoke of a "next world" that existed on its own and was not preceded by this world, and no one thought that such a world would be better overall.
It's also not clear why you believe there is dishonesty in this claim. It sounds like a logical and reasonable claim to me.

And I will just add that this whole idea that it is better to create a world in which one can keep the commandments than to create a world in which there is no suffering seems terrible to me in itself. I really don't understand how a sane person can name a being who would rather create a world full of suffering and evil where one can worship it and keep its arbitrary commandments than a world in which there is no suffering and no good Torah (read it twice, maybe). All these justifications for suffering are very irritating, and it is better to take God's position in Job that we simply don't understand anything. (Not that I agree with it, but it is certainly better than these ridiculous excuses)

Danny, this is exactly the gidom I was talking about. Do you seriously think that if I ask a regular religious person whether God can give an afterlife to someone who doesn't live in this world, he will say "No, prove that it's even logically possible!". It's clearly a counterintuitive rationalization to continue to believe that he is good. Again, shame on you.

Q, you are assuming that the commandments are arbitrary, a strange (and illogical) assumption. You are also assuming that the purpose of the world is only the commandments, and this is also an unclear assumption.

It doesn't matter so much how a "regular religious person" will respond. But if you ask, he will probably tell you that God's ways are hidden. And that's essentially the same answer, only in a less explicit and defined form.

I am referring to the thread in which the Rabbi said that it is necessary to prove that a better world can exist *that has the same commandments as we do*, lest the issue of commandments somehow approaches in importance the prevention of suffering (and even more so in the eyes of God).

This is not the same answer at all. Saying "God's ways are hidden" is like saying I don't know. The Rabbi doesn't say I don't know, he says "Prove that it is possible to create a better universe."

To say that the ways of God are hidden means that only God knows why this is the only way possible, and what the significant disadvantages are in any other way (and in fact, implicitly, it implies that there must necessarily be disadvantages in any other way).

Q, what does it have to do with the afterlife? It doesn't follow any rules. It's clear that God can get us there immediately, no one is saying no.

Danny, I don't understand what God did that earned this belief that what he does must be the best. If you truly believe he is good, you can justify until tomorrow why the world is so terrible, but why do you believe he is good in the first place? From simply observing the world, that's not the conclusion you should come to, in my opinion.
David, so why doesn't he do it? Any excuse you give me will be too weak. It can't justify all the suffering in the world. Not for me at least.

Q, because in my opinion, being good is a necessary condition for perfection. And evil is a deficiency and absence.
So who is the stunner here?
Note that the answer you received above is not a "weak excuse" and is actually not an answer at all. It explains that the question itself is probably an oxymoron pun that has no logical content behind it.

Well, why do you assume he's perfect? It's not like he's proven himself to be so.

Q, because why would he do that? He could also not have created us at all, then.

Why? Maybe so that we don't have to suffer and endure in this world? And can you think of anything more important than preventing suffering?

Imperfection can only appear in that which is subject to constraints that detract from its perfection, something that does not belong to someone who did not precede anything.

*A thing that does not belong to someone who has nothing before it (Kazach).

Strange. Can he have qualities that make him do good but not qualities that make him do bad? Well, that's not particularly interesting anymore.

that,
There is nothing to limit it, and therefore it is necessarily perfect. Here too, a claim of imperfection is a logical error.
If it doesn't particularly interest you – there's nothing I can do about it (:

Hello and sorry for the delay in responding.
First of all, there must be some kind of deficiency, a flaw in the perfection of God, because of which He created the world and within it us who have the power of choice. The Rabbi explained this on every occasion according to the words of Rabbi Kook that the only deficiency of a perfect being is that he cannot be perfected any more. Therefore, He created a world in which we can be perfected.
This is a wonderful excuse for our very existence, but it still does not explain the problem of evil in the world. And to claim that it is impossible to create a better world within the framework of the current laws of physics is, in my opinion, puzzling.
A- Because history shows ups and downs that also occur within the framework of those rigid laws, and what would prevent an omnipotent and absolutely good Creator from placing the world on a good footing for the world?
In the Rabbi's argument to the questioner was that erasing only suffering from the world in its current form is like creating a round triangle, since the rigid laws of nature also dictate suffering. My question is, why can't the element of suffering alone be isolated from the entirety of the laws (at least wherever it is unjust, such as harming infants and innocent people). The only answer is that God specifically wanted this system of laws, which would also dictate suffering (as a goal, or as collateral damage), and the question is why He specifically wanted this system of laws, which on its face appears to be unjust and capricious, at least in the eyes of His creatures.

Hello, Honorable Rabbi, at your request, the question about suffering is linked here. In the last response.

I did not understand the relevance of these arguments, and in particular what they add to what was already said above.
A – What does it have to do with history? The entire historical process is part of the causal chain that is carried out by the laws of nature. So there are fluctuations up and down, and the entire system across the entire timeline is a product of the laws of nature. You assume that it is possible to create a static world that will remain constant all the time like in the historical golden age (when was there ever such a golden age?). But the laws of nature also determine the volatility and the entire process. You cannot remove part of it and that is it, since you have changed all the laws here. When the laws of nature say that I will die, does that mean that I will die at the moment of my birth? No, they determine that I will die after so and so many years, meaning the entire process. Furthermore, creating a world in a fixed state is itself a change in the laws of nature, and of course also makes creation redundant (after all, it was intended to achieve something and not to stand like a puppet in its place).
B – As I explained to you in our conversation orally, it is impossible to isolate the element of suffering because it is not a distinct element. The same set of rules determines the entire complex. Take one detail out of the result and change the rules in such a way that many other things will change besides suffering. For example, you will eradicate some bacteria that causes diseases. But it also ensures that there will be grass and the cows can lick it and live. And if there are no cows, then there will be no meat and there will be great results in all kinds of contexts that you can't even imagine (like the butterfly effect).
Think about Newton's laws of motion that determine, under certain circumstances, circular motion of some body. Do you really think you can simply remove a quarter of the circle and let the body move on the remaining three quarters? After all, these are completely different laws of motion, and they will change a lot of other things besides the quarter of the circle you removed.
It's the same misunderstanding as in A.

Okay. So of course it is impossible to change the laws of nature, while God wants nature as it is. The question is why did God create this particular nature? Shouldn't He create an alternative nature, with other and different laws that don't dictate suffering? (And again, to create a new nature, not to change the existing nature, which is like a quarter of a triangle).

Okay, I'll say it again for the tenth and final time: God has goals in creation (which I don't know about), and these laws of nature probably achieve them in the best possible way. Other laws won't achieve them. Therefore, changing the laws might be able to prevent suffering (if there are any laws with less suffering), but they won't achieve the goal.
The burden of proof that there is a system of laws that achieves the goals without suffering is on the plaintiff. And he must of course be equipped with knowledge about these goals. Good luck.