The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round II)

KRF's last round is a result of misinterpretation - in fact frankly, given the numerous clarifications I've already made, I fail to see how it could be anything other than purposeful misinterpretation to net an easy win. He constantly attempts to show how the language of my round shows that I must be aiming for logical contradiction, even though I have explicitly pointed out time and time again - from the very beginning - that this is not the case. As a result of this, it's obvious that any language he thinks implies logical contradiction is to be interpreted differently from what he assumes. For instance, he claims that the phrase 'How is this to be reconciled with the proposition that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God created and maintains the natural world?' implies logical contradiction. Not at all. Presumably, he thinks the word 'reconciled' implies I mean that all he has to do is show that the two are logically compatible. But what I mean by reconcile is: 'to make consistent or congruous' [1]. In other words, to show that the two can fit naturally together - that animal suffering is not so surprising given Christian theism after all. Virtually no issue is settled on a question of logical validity. It cannot be logically proven that the world is not resting on the back of a turtle swimming through space. It cannot be logically proven that the world is not under the grip of an elaborate reptilian conspiracy controlling the government. The question is whether any of these beliefs are reasonable. Whether they are likely. Whether they are inductively plausible or not. Arguments against these issues cannot be waved away by claiming they are logically possible and misinterpreting the arguments against them. To claim that I am the one being intellectually dishonest when all he is doing is interpreting my argument in a way I have said time and time again that it is not to be is, well, being intellectually dishonest himself. It's quite frustrating actually - when he said he wanted to redo this debate, I assumed he was actually going to engage the argument this time. Not some strawman version of it. [KRF's objection] Having said all that, he does end up attacking one of the premises of the argument - the God would choose to minimise animal suffering as far as possible. He ignores my arguments for why God would care about animal suffering, but ends up conceding the point anyway. But here's what he claims - that him caring about animal suffering has no bearing on whether he would do anything about it! He gives the example of a butterfly struggling out of its cocoon - to help it would weaken it, so letting it struggle is for its own benefits it in the end. This is a nice analogy, but clearly not applicable. With the butterfly, there is an actual reason for its suffering. 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. For instance, a similar creature is a caterpillar. One of the primary predators is the ichneumon wasp, which paralyses the caterpillar, lays its eggs inside it then sticks around as the larvae slowly eat their way out of the caterpillar from the inside. It is not anaesthetized, as one might expect if a loving God were in charge of the whole procedure. It dies, screaming in silent agony. There are millions more examples around the world even as we type. Horrors far, far, far more terrible than a butterfly struggling to get out of its cocoon, and with no plausible reasons for their benefit. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...