The Problem of Animal Suffering.

First, allow me to apologize for misspelling my opponent's name last round. I shall endeavor to correct that mistake from here on out. I'm curious as to how Kinesis finds my argument a straw man. His argument is supposed to be a "compelling reason to reject the existence of a theistic, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God." He attempts to do this by showing that animal suffering violates his all-good, all-powerful nature. If needless animal suffering is not evil, how can it contradict either quality? If it's not evil, then what exactly does animal suffering have to do with the existence of God? I fail to see how this differs from the Problem of Evil in any significant way. So, I chose to steer the argument towards the general problem of evil in order to avoid obfuscating the debate. He may continue to use gratuitous animal suffering as an example of evil, but to focus on it alone serves no other purpose than to gain a possible advantage by an appeal to emotion. Before I offer my defense, I must cite Kinesis for an appeal to authority fallacy when he says, "If his objection were valid, then thousands upon thousands of Christian philosophers have been wasting their time coming up with defences and theodicies in response to the argument from evil - who knew it was so easy to defeat! Alvin Plantinga needn't have bothered writing his famous refutation of the logical argument from evil." Note there is no counter-argument, just an attempt to poison the well for his benefit. The Invisible Pink Unicorn story is a false analogy. Allow me to clarify my position: P1. Truth is objective. P2. Objective evidence supports an objective truth claim. P3. Subjective or arbitrary evidence does not support an objective truth claim. :. To objectively prove that God exists, one must appeal to objective evidence. Kinesis' says, "…even if I did not believe morality was objective, I would still be able to make the argument that the immense amount of animal suffering in the world is objectively inconsistent with a God with the properties of omnipotence and omni-benevolence." If morality is not objective, then it cannot be used to objectively argue for inconsistency. If Kinesis is right--that morality is subjective--then his opinion cannot prove the existence of God one way or the other. At best, Kinesis could say that he dislikes God for allowing animal suffering, but it's hardly "compelling evidence" against his existence. Kinesis does refine his argument near the end of his round to argue that the Christian Worldview is internally inconsistent. That is, if he can show that Christian belief contradicts itself, then it is incorrect. However, no contradiction can be found exclusively within the Christian framework. In Christianity, God is by definition good. He does no evil and is sovereign over his creation. Ergo, anything he ordains within his creation is, by definition, good. (Keep in mind, Kinesis accepted this definition). Any attempt to say, "God says he's good, but the things he does are evil," is to substitute Christian morals with one's own moral standards. Internal consistency cannot be proven with external premises. This leaves Kinesis with only the option to objectively defend his Argument from Animal Suffering. He must show that needless animal suffering is objectively evil. Simply asserting animal suffering contradicts God's goodness and power is begging the question. To conclude, Kinesis is arguing the existence of animal suffering contradicts an all-good, all-powerful God and therefore makes for compelling evidence against his existence. He has not offered an objective reason why this is true. He simply assumes animal suffering is evil, so much so, that it cannot be reconciled with God's existence. He also has yet to reveal any internal inconsistencies within the Christian Worldview. I submit, therefore, that the resolution stands negated.