2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[FredVegrox]

Many have ethical positions they stand for, but it is not fully thought out. So they stay inconsistent with the ethical positions by saying they are against practicing animal cruelty, along with not hurting relatives, and still partaking of animal products while it becomes known what is done to animals for those to be available. It is contrary to God, that many say they believe in, with it to be understood that God as Creator cares for the life in the universe. It could not be exclusively care for us, logically. And why should not any care to have the healthiest way, which could be learned? People are stubborn for their preferences even with it possibly being shown as inconsistent with their values or their thinking. That is unfortunately too common, though it was not in my own experience, as I was changing things as I learned about things that call for change.

[FredVegrox]

People generally do have to lie to themselves, for any inconsistencies in their lives. That animals are brutally slaughtered cannot be considered while eating animal products that are in meals, if one cares at all for animals. It would be taboo to the mind, so it is thoroughly closed off. If it is brought up at that time, violent reaction with argument can be expected. Cognitive dissonance is a very real thing.

[FredVegrox]

There are those who say God meant there to be animals for being food for us. They show a lack of capacity to see the inherent contradiction to logic in that. There are millions of species. How many species are they eating from? So, automatically they don't mean all animals, many animals can't be their food. Millions of the species can't be, while less than ten, or is it even twelve, species would be used. And for what did God make animals to be sensitive, emotional, feeling beings which would flee if they were free, to be held captive in any conditions without it mattering and be brutally slaughtered on a date assigned to them from the start, with a capacity for a much longer life? God who does this is loving, who they trust?? This all directly contradicts logic. All caring from God is not limited, it can't be, and God would not provide animals that feel and are sensitive just for all that, when they would be free if they could be. There are the very few that escape when they can manage, and those will avoid being caught as far as possible. Humans need to take accountability for themselves with their own choices, I am trusting they will be held accountable. And the healthiness of eating much more variety of whole foods from plants, without need for animal products for that, is very well established, why would God mean for humans to be more subject to cancers, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, or other issues, all of these associated with standard diets which include animal products? All the facts have to be ignored by those who say animals are meant by God for us.

[FredVegrox]

Many say they have their morals, so they do not have to observe my morals or anyone else's morals. This makes morals subjective, so that morals do not really mean anything. Recognizing God would indeed make morals meaningful, there would be consistent morals to recognize not subject to individual recognition for it. Then we are accountable.

[FredVegrox]

Veganism has basis with there being logical recognition of God which it does not have so much without God, as without God anything right or wrong is subjective. With God there is adequate explanation of right that is distinct from wrong, good that is distinct from bad, without subjective argument. What we are and what we have is not from natural processes but rather intelligence, compassion, and love we have is because that exists from God who is unlimited with any of it.

[FredVegrox]

While that is powerful for seeing God's presence is essential, it is not all there is. I have sometimes used a metaphor of a box drawn on something. And within I put "everything existing", and what is outside is all non-existent. Now the question asked is, what explains what is in the box? There must then be necessary existence which is there, causing anything more there to be. Nothing is outside of the drawn box to appeal to, all there is outside of the drawn box is non-existent in the metaphor. One has to deal with what is necessary existence that explains all else existing. There must be such or there would be no drawn box of everything that exists. And the necessary existence is sufficient for all the universe. What can necessary existence be, or who? Because if it is not what can be called God, what is a better explanation of such necessary existence? The argument I heard a few times that paired particles and anti-particles come from nothing and explain the all the universe, I can dispute as it is something that has capacity to have paired particles and anti-particles produced, not nothing. Can that be sufficient for the whole universe, which is rapidly expanding? I have heard no basis for that. And it would not be unlimited, but have all sorts of interruptions. Being necessary, necessary existence does not have a beginning or an end, existing everywhere, without interruptions anywhere. Any quality of necessary existence is without limit.