The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round III)

I thank Con for his response - although I think he needs to do some research into what constitutes a sound syllogism. I'll take them as pointers to his actual arguments for now. Con offers two responses to my arguments. First, he attempts to blunt the force of the argument by arguing that God cares much less about animals than about humans, who contain a soul. Second, he offers an explanation of animal suffering - that it shows humans that they live in a fallen world. :God just don't care: First, it is worthwhile to note that Con concedes that God cares about animals to a degree; just that he regards human welfare to be more important. Note that this does not actually deny the argument. In fact, if God cares about animals at all then he would still minimise their suffering to the greatest degree possible in order to achieve his other, more important goals. I contend that even under the assumption that God cares about animals less than humans, the astounding amount of animal suffering in the animal kingdom seems so unbelievably gargantuan that it counts as strong reason to believe God has not created this terrible state of affairs. Are we really to believe there was no other way than this for a being with omnipotent power? The very idea seems absurd. If God cares about animals even slightly, the argument still has a large amount of force due the the sheer quantity of suffering undergone by them. Besides, if God truly cares little about animals then he seems to have moral beliefs utterly alien to ours. Most modern people recognise that animal suffering should be avoided as far as possible. We try our hardest to avoid killing animals on the road. We treat our pets kindly. Most of us are against cruel forms of animal experimentation. We all feel a moral responsibility to animals. It seems strange then, that if our moral code is a reflection of God's as is the case on Christianity, that God's morality is so alien to our own. :Animals are a signpost: Con contends that animal suffering is a way for God to show us that our current world is imperfect - that it shows people how futile and pointless this existence is, so we can look for our true home in heaven. Again, it seems extremely implausible that a being with omnipotent power could not have found a kinder way of communicating this to us. An omnipotent being can do anything possible. He could telepathically communicate these beliefs to us himself. He could show us all a vision of heaven's perfection so we understand how crummy this world is in comparison. He could do ANYTHING. Why on earth would he choose to create a horrific cycle of pain and suffering, most of which we never even know about, to communicate to us? Especially since A. It has led many to conclude that naturalistic evolution accounts for life, and thus there is no real need for God and B. It is exactly what we would expect to find if naturalism is true and the forces of nature, which don't give a damn about animal suffering, are the true creators of the animal kingdom. It's almost as if God is trying to communicate that he doesn't exist, rather than communicating to us the splendours of heaven in comparison to this life! :Conclusion: Con's last paragraph is similar to KRF's butterfly analogy - in which a butterfly must struggle to get out of its cocoon. However, I'm not sure where Valtarov is going with this one. He claims he is looking for the ultimate good of every individual (including animals?) and does not care about our present suffering. I think this is clearly false. Even if it is temporary, a God with omnipotence and omni-benevolence would still minimise suffering to the greatest possible degree. He would have to, because unnecessary suffering is clearly incompatible with his omni-properties.