Rebuttal of supposed evidence for carnivores before the Fall

[Darth Executor]

It seems to me that there are three kinds of perfection that can be discussed here:

1. Absolute perfection simpliciter.

This would be something that only God possesses as He alone is not only absolutely perfect in this or that way but in every single way.

2. Absolute perfection when it comes to this or that thing.

So for example those seeing God face to face, as He is, in heaven are absolutely perfect when it comes to their freedom as not only are they not slaves to sin but their wills are so perfected that this is not even a possibility for them. Once a man or angel is told, "Come and share in the joy of the master" there's not any possibility that he will leave it.

3. Perfection in the sense of not including anything bad even if it could be even better than it is now.

This strikes me as the state that God created the angels in. God didn't create them with anything bad but there were goods (such as seeing Him face to face) that He still had in store for the angels that were able to meet His test of justice and which would have been given to the angels that failed His test of justice had they not so failed.

This strikes me also as the state that God created the material creation in. When God spoke of it as good, He did not mean "It's good but it includes some bad things." Interpreting scripture that way strikes me as monstrous. Parts of the material creation could become even better (ex. men could one day see God face to face as He is rather tham mediated through a creature like a thundering voice or wind or what have you) and the material creation was destined as a whole to an even greater good (it's being transfigured as an even better new heaven and new earth), but none of it included anything bad.

It wasn't bad. It was, however, flawed and it certainly was not perfect.

[A Cup of No]

It seems God's nature? i don't think so. Got any scriptural reference that everything God makes is perfect?

I'll get to it. I still can't understand why God would make a flawed creation, though.

UGH! Show why vulnerability is a flaw? That's common sense man! It's pretty much the exact same word! It's like asking me why an automobile is a car.

An automobile is a car because...

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Creation was placed under man's control. You agree with me that if there were no choice, there would be no value. Therefore God desired for man to express his love by obedience, so the tree was placed in the garden. This isn't a problem. The creation was not "less than perfect" becauee there were choices. If your parents give you a car, and say "If you do this and this and this, it'll stay in perfect condition, I'm testing your responsibility" and you go ram it into a tree, you can't say "The car wasn't perfect 'cause look at what happened." There was no flaw because the ability for corruption was there. Because there was an ability for corruption shows that it is perfect, because if it were less than perfect, just "good" how you say, then it is already corrupt. The ability for corruption is not a flaw because this situation involves the value of the relationship between God, man, and the creation over which man was given dominion.

I'll save you the trouble.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very3966 good.2896

3996:

me'ôd
meh-ode'
From the same as H181; properly vehemence, that is, (with or without preposition) vehemently; by implication wholly, speedily, etc. (often with other words as an intensive or superlative;

2896:

ṭôb
tobe
From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): - beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ([-favoured]).

\

Thank you.

I think that both of our points remain unproven, but you're probably presenting and defending your case better than I am. You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

[Darth Executor]

I'll get to it. I still can't understand why God would make a flawed creation, though.

You said why yourself in your next section.

An automobile is a car because...

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Creation was placed under man's control. You agree with me that if there were no choice, there would be no value. Therefore God desired for man to express his love by obedience, so the tree was placed in the garden. This isn't a problem. The creation was not "less than perfect" becauee there were choices. If your parents give you a car, and say "If you do this and this and this, it'll stay in perfect condition, I'm testing your responsibility" and you go ram it into a tree, you can't say "The car wasn't perfect 'cause look at what happened." There was no flaw because the ability for corruption was there. Because there was an ability for corruption shows that it is perfect, because if it were less than perfect, just "good" how you say, then it is already corrupt. The ability for corruption is not a flaw because this situation involves the value of the relationship between God, man, and the creation over which man was given dominion.

The car analogy is bad because the parents didn't make me because there certainly was a flaw in me. My point is that a flaw makes something less than perfect and free will is a flaw in man because it leaves us open to attack. YOu are right that I do not think that a PERFECT human being would be of much value. In fact, a perfect creation would simply add another member to the trinity which in the end means nothing because no matter how much you add to infinity it will still be infinity. The fact that the ability for corruption has a benefit that outweights the negative does not make it flawless. Sorry. For something to be flawless, having the good outweight the evil isn't enough. It needs all good and no evil.

I think that both of our points remain unproven, but you're probably presenting and defending your case better than I am.

No, your point remains unproven because the Bible doesn't say the creation was perfect, but rather says that it was "very good". ;)

You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

It's not automatically a flaw, so I don't know why I would prove it.

[A Cup of No]

The car analogy is bad because the parents didn't make me because there certainly was a flaw in me. My point is that a flaw makes something less than perfect and free will is a flaw in man because it leaves us open to attack. YOu are right that I do not think that a PERFECT human being would be of much value. In fact, a perfect creation would simply add another member to the trinity which in the end means nothing because no matter how much you add to infinity it will still be infinity. The fact that the ability for corruption has a benefit that outweights the negative does not make it flawless. Sorry. For something to be flawless, having the good outweight the evil isn't enough. It needs all good and no evil.

So I guess it was a flawed analogy? Anyway, I don't think a perfect creation would add members to the Trinity, because no human will ever be God, that's just silly. There is more to being God than being sinless. I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. You say that free will is a flaw in man, and then a little further down..

You still haven't shown me why the ability to make choice is a flaw.

It's not automatically a flaw, so I don't know why I would prove it.

....you say it's not automaticall a flaw. What's the difference between the ability to make choices and free will?

We're disagreeing on whether free will is a flaw or not. Or maybe you're disagreeing with yourself on whether free will is a flaw or not.

Concerning the use of the word "perfect" in the Creation story, why would it be necessary to say "And God said, PERF!" Wouldn't the people have naturally understood that God's creation is always perfect? I do concede that this is an assumption on my part and my weakest point, so thrash away.

[Paul]

It wasn't bad. It was, however, flawed and it certainly was not perfect.

So according to you, being flawed is a good thing?

[shunyadragon]

You can't tell. Fossils don't come with tags that say "I am pre-fall" or "I am 234908234 years old." You'll decide based on your idea of whether or not there was animal death before the fall.

Exactly, since fossils in all formations show predation in the food chain as it is today your argument is highly flawed.

I will remind you that the nature of the teeth is only one of many ways to determine the diet of the species.

[Paul]

Exactly, since fossils in all formations show predation in the food chain as it is today your argument is highly flawed.

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

[A Cup of No]

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

Don't understand how'd you be speaking for me?

I think it's plausible that God created the animals with all their post-fall functions intact and ready, since He knew that Adam would fail in the garden. But I dunno. I'm not a scientist or a geologist or whatever. I think my participation in this thread is mostly done, but it was a good chat. Thanks for all the ideas guys, see ya.

[Darth Executor]

So I guess it was a flawed analogy? Anyway, I don't think a perfect creation would add members to the Trinity, because no human will ever be God, that's just silly. There is more to being God than being sinless. I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. You say that free will is a flaw in man, and then a little further down..

How am I contradicting myself? And a perfect creation would need to be another God which by His nature would simply add another member to the Trinity.

....you say it's not automaticall a flaw. What's the difference between the ability to make choices and free will?

I say it's not automatically a flaw because it's not a flaw in God's case. With His infinite powers He can benefit from the good without ever falling into sin.

We're disagreeing on whether free will is a flaw or not. Or maybe you're disagreeing with yourself on whether free will is a flaw or not.

Not really, see above.

Concerning the use of the word "perfect" in the Creation story, why would it be necessary to say "And God said, PERF!" Wouldn't the people have naturally understood that God's creation is always perfect? I do concede that this is an assumption on my part and my weakest point, so thrash away.

God didn't have to say anything. The fact that He said it was very good rather than perfect means it was not perfect.

[Darth Executor]

So according to you, being flawed is a good thing?

No, that's not what I said. I said the creation wasn't bad despite having a flaw. Would you consider your mom bad if she scratched her face?

[shunyadragon]

No it's not. I won't speak for Cup but I will say that your logic here is faulty. The question to ask is: "If there were no predation pre-fall would one expect to find fossils indicative of this fact?" If the answer is no, then the fact that there are no fossils indicative of the fact that there was no predation pre-fall, would not count as evidence against the latter fact. It would actually count as evidence for it as it would be exactly what one would expect.

Let me repeat that I have not said that there was no predation; I've only said that there was no predation of a certain kind.

What kind of predation of 'a certain kind' are you referring to?

Since all formations with diverse life show predation in the same 'as you say violent nature or manner' as predation today.

[Paul]

What kind of predation of 'a certain kind' are you referring to?

Since all formations with diverse life show predation in the same 'as you say violent nature or manner' as predation today.

I specified the kind in the OP.

Some forms of predation that go on today are not in a violent and viscious manner. Some forms of hunting for example.

[Paul]

No, that's not what I said. I said the creation wasn't bad despite having a flaw. Would you consider your mom bad if she scratched her face?

If my mom scratched her face the scratch would be a bad thing though it wouldn't make her morally bad.

Did creation have any bad aspects? You say that it had flaws? Flaws are bad. I'm not asking about whether the thing that posseses the flaw is wholly and completely bad or bad in this or that sense, but whether the flaw itself is bad in some sense or other. Unless you want to say that being flawed is a good thing, you can't avoid saying that creation had some bad aspects to it.

[Darth Executor]

If my mom scratched her face the scratch would be a bad thing though it wouldn't make her morally bad.

Did creation have any bad aspects? You say that it had flaws? Flaws are bad. I'm not asking about whether the thing that posseses the flaw is wholly and completely bad or bad in this or that sense, but whether the flaw itself is bad in some sense or other. Unless you want to say that being flawed is a good thing, you can't avoid saying that creation had some bad aspects to it.

I'm not saying creation didn't have bad aspects to it. But you said I implied the creation is bad which I didn't.

[shunyadragon]

I specified the kind in the OP.

Some forms of predation that go on today are not in a violent and viscious manner. Some forms of hunting for example.

No, you failed to define the type of predation that you considered 'a certain kind', you just simply said that the predation is different, and pre-flood predation lacked the violent predition of post-flood. I gave examples throughout the fossil record such as preditors raiding nests, and many examples of predation in the fossil record very much like happens today. There are examples in the fossil record of what was obviously a rather violent conflict between prey and victim, and on several occasions the record shows both died.

Stating that predation today may not be viscious and cruel does not help your case. Predation in terms of the victim is not nice in any manner. Hunting and trapping can be just as viscious to the victim and cruel to the victim as a lion killing an antilope. In nature predation is primarily balenced and in harmony in the past and present. In hunting and trapping today it is often the case that the killing serves no real purpose, but sport. Modern extinctions of animals due to hunting and trapping would be considered cruel and vicious.