The Problem of Animal Suffering.

Thanks to Kenesis for this debate. I hope the smaller character limit will invite more readers. Kenesis wants to debate a Christian, so I offer the most complete description of God I know. He is too complex to be simply use the typical quadro-omni definition, so I quote the Westminster Confession of Faith [1]: ----- There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. ----- My rebuttal is simple. The Argument from Animal Suffering is merely the Problem from Evil in different clothes. Clearly, Kenesis sees animal suffering as evil, and he cannot reconcile its existence with the God of the Bible: P1. If God is all-good, he would destroy animal suffering P2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy animal suffering P3. But animal suffering is not destroyed :. Such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist In order to objectively claim that God doesn't exist with this proof, the evidence in its favor must also be objective, namely evil. If he can show animal suffering to be universally evil then we can rightly substitute animal suffering with evil: P1. If God is all-good, he would destroy evil P2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil P3. But evil is not destroyed :. Such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist Kenesis cannot appeal to relative morality. Relative morality reduces moral obligation to matters of opinion. Note the absurdity in the revised syllogism: P1. If God is all-good, he would destroy things I decide are evil P2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy things I decide are evil P3. But things I decide are evil are not destroyed :. Such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist How can we disprove God based on something people simply decided? The only way to truly disprove God is to appeal to absolute morality, which must then be justified in a Godless existence. I will show that this is impossible. Absolute morality is irrational outside of the Christian Worldview. Therefore, in order for Kenesis' argument to be valid, it must be false. 1. http://www.reformed.org...