Scott wrote: ↑
January 21st, 2019, 11:58 am
It is unclear whether the primary topic of Original Post is meant to (1) make and support a conclusion or (2) ask a philosophical question.
It appears the Original Post could be claiming and providing argument to support the following conclusion: the very engine by which the world operates is an innate cycle of violence and bloodshed
. To me, that conclusion seems somewhat agreeable except for its vagueness. Decent evidence and argument to support the vague conclusion was provided in the Original Post.
However, it appears alternatively the Original Post might be meant to ask a question about a very different subject which is someone along the following lines: "Why did God create the world [to operate by an engine of innate violence and bloodshed]?"
If so, I feel that question represents a loaded question fallacy
The evidence, elaboration, and argument in the post almost all seems to support the conclusion rather than the loaded question and the assumptions with which the loaded question is loaded. As is often the case, I believe it's the unspoken assumptions that are most doubtful and debatable than the spoken ones, the question itself, or any potential answers to the question.
The question appears to possibly assume all of the following without specifying them as premised of the question:
(a) At least one god exists.
(b) That god is the only god that exists (i.e. there is one and only one god).
(c) For some reason, what is in the Christian religious texts matters as to us understanding the nature of that god, but for some reason all the other religions' texts aren't as important to understanding the nature of the god.
(d) The world was created by that god.
(e) That god is responsible for the world that was created, meaning the god presumably had full control over how the world was created versus being subject to some kind of universal laws or such that even partly governed how the world was created.
(f) The god has free-will.
(g) The god has reasons for what it does.
(h) That god has desires and preferences.
(i) For some unknown reason, that god would have reason to not want to create a world with violence or has reason to prefer a world with less violence (meaning that the god's choice to create a world with violence requires explanation).
Even if they had been stated instead of loaded, if any of the above loaded assumptions are invalid or untrue, the question loses meaning.
The above list is not meant to be exhaustive or exact, especially since the reader (me in this case) is forced to guess at the exact nature of the unspoken premises since they are loaded in instead of explicitly stated. Those are just guesses at what the unspoken loaded premises of the question are; I could be wrong about that list.
Due to the loaded question fallacy, I would conclude that overall the question lacks meaning
and thus any and all answers are wrong. (But as always I could be wrong.)