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 snake and a tree of knowledge there), and in my opinion the whole excuse is forced and narrow (but believe what you want, of course).

Q,
If anything, it's to stymie yourself, not God.
The argument is that you're saying things that don't make sense (assuming there's 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 for the world, and the fact that we're asking and wondering is short-sighted. I don't think it goes beyond what “most Judaism believes” (I would say that's the classic answer).
It certainly makes more sense than the option you raised (about him being evil. Which is really logical nonsense).

By the way, in Genesis it really was a world that didn't exist.

Q, it seems you didn't understand what I was saying.
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 create a rigid world that is not governed in a rigid manner? And if not, is that why He is a cripple?

Besides, if we think a little we will realize that it is not so cruel. Apparently animals do not 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 absolutely 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 afterlife. 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 anyone who has any respect for the suffering of others that this is nothing more than dishonest philosophizing. KM Sorry for the harshness, I said what I think, with no particular pretension to convince anyone of my position.
David, mammals definitely feel suffering at a high level, and I really can't imagine anything scarier than a lion chasing you and catching 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?

Here too, this is not true. Throughout the ages, people have talked about a “next world” that can only come after this world.
No one has talked about a “next world” that exists on its own and was not preceded by this world, and no one has thought that such a world would be better overall.
It is also not clear why you think 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 giddiness I was talking about. Do you seriously think that if I ask a religious person whether God can give an afterlife to someone who doesn't live in this world, he'll say, "No, prove that's even logically possible!" It's clearly a counterintuitive rationalization to continue to believe that he's 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 where 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 matter 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 operate according to rules. It's clear that God can get us there right away, 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 really 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 just observing the world, that's not the conclusion you should come to, I think.
David, so why doesn't he do it? Any excuse you give me would be too weak. It couldn'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 disadvantage and absence.
So who is being a jerk here?
Note that the answer you received above is not a “weak excuse” and in fact, it is not an answer at all. It explains that the question itself is probably an oxymoron wordplay 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).

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

Q,
There is nothing to limit it, and therefore it is necessarily perfect. Here too, claiming imperfection is a logical error.
If it doesn't particularly interest you – I have nothing to do about it (:

Hello and sorry for the late response.
First of all, there must be some kind of flaw, a flaw in the perfection of the Almighty, because of which He created the world and within it us who have a choice. The Rabbi explained this on every occasion according to the words of Rabbi Kook that the only flaw of the perfect is that he cannot be perfected any more. Therefore, He created a world in which we can be perfected.
This is indeed a wonderful excuse for the very creation of us, 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, in my opinion, is 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 point 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 babies 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 has already been 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 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, that is, 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, it is impossible to isolate the element of suffering because it is not a distinct element. The same set of laws determines the entire whole. Remove one detail from the result and change the laws in such a way that many other things will change except suffering. For example, you will eradicate some bacteria that causes diseases. But it also ensures that there will be grass and cows can lick it and live. If there are no cows, then there will be no meat and there will be great results in all kinds of connections that you can't even imagine (like the butterfly effect).
Think about Newton's laws of motion that determine, under certain circumstances, the circular motion of a body. Do you really think that 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 many other things except for the quarter of the circle that you removed.
It is 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? Could He create an alternative nature, with different laws that do not 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 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 defendant. And he must of course be equipped with knowledge about these goals. Good luck.