The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round II)

Well, this debate didn't go the way either of us had hoped. I am not trying to be disingenuous. I am sincerely trying to understand my opponent's argument. When he first said animal suffering was compelling evidence to reject the existence of God, my best interpretation of his opening round indicated a logical incompatibility. I offer a defense, he says it doesn't apply. I will let the voters decide if my interpretation was way off base. In the meantime, whether Kinesis says it applies or not, I still offer my logical defense. Animal suffering is not incompatible with an all-good, all-powerful God so long as God has a morally good reason for allowing it. Regarding the minimization of animal suffering, Kenisis says, "For the vast amounts of horrifying suffering undergone by animals even as we speak, there can be no serious consideration that it benefits the animal in the end. " Assumption: animals must directly benefit from suffering in order for suffering to be ultimately good. I never said suffering always benefits the animal directly. Indeed, my analogy was meant to convey how the knowledge of the person watching the struggling butterfly transcends its experience. Just because we might not be able to imagine why animal suffering is ultimately good does not mean it ultimately isn't. The suffering caterpillar at the hand of the ichneumon wasp is terrible indeed, but what does this actually prove, even probabilistically? If he's looking for a Christian answer, it is that all suffering--including animal suffering--is part of the fall of man. Man chose to disobey God and God allowed suffering to enter into our existence. Kinesis and others may not like the answer, but God had a good reason for allowing us to choose our fate. It is perfectly "consistent or congruous" that God sees free will with natural consequences as better than no free will at all. Overlooking the fact that we've been talking past each other with different interpretation of terms, examine Kinesis' argument carefully. What has he actually supported? He has stated multiple times that God would minimize animal suffering without showing why we should accept this. Yes, God cares, but what reason did Kinesis offer as to why caring necessitates prevention? He offered none, as he is hoping his appeal to emotion will suffice. After all, we all feel bad about the plight of the silently screaming caterpillar. In the final analysis, he hasn't really supported his argument with anything other than his preconceptions about what is good and just. He wants to discredit the Christian worldview without bothering to take the entire worldview philosophy into account. As best as I can tell, Kinesis wants the readers to reject Christian theism on the basis that it bothers him. Keep in mind that Kinesis is making a claim--yes, a probabilistic one--about the reality of God. One would expect, if there indeed is an internal inconsistency within Christianity, that we would be shown diametrically opposed premises found in scripture. I was waiting for him to show how scripture claims--either directly or indirectly--that God is so good that animal suffering just doesn't comport. No such evidence was ever forthcoming. Therefore, I am of the mind that he has not supported his resolution in this debate. I do want to thank Kinesis for seeing the debate through to the end. I am sorry we couldn't see eye to eye on certain concepts, but it was nevertheless good to debate with someone thoughtful and reliable.