The Problem of Animal Suffering.

Before I wrap up my argument, I must address some of Kinesis tactics. First of all, when I said Kinesis was using an appeal to authority, I thought I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I have to ask, why did he drop names such as Alvin Plantinga and the nebulous "thousands upon thousands of Christian philosophers" if he had no intention to actually explain what they contributed to his rebuttal? As best as I can tell, it was a cheap shot meant to weaken my argument by attacking my credentials before he actually refuted it. If it's not an appeal to authority, then it's ad hominem. I ask the voters to re-read that paragraph and consider its intent and implications. Please feel free to let me know in the comments if I read too much into it. Furthermore, my argument regarding objective morality was not purposefully a red herring. I am tasked to refute Kinesis' arguments, which in his own words initially spoke nothing of the internal inconsistency of the Christian Worldview. I'm not driving the debate off topic, rather I'm attempting to refute his arguments as best as I can interpret them. Besides, what harm is there in refuting the resolution on both fronts? So we've come down to the Christian worldview, which I did address at the end of my last round. Kinesis' entire argument rests on this premise: An all-good, all-powerful, all-loving God would choose to minimize animal suffering. Where is the support for this premise? If he is indeed operating within the Christian framework, where are the biblical references that show that God would choose to do this? There is none. It is simply asserted, over and over. He says, "To argue that vast amounts of animal suffering would be a GOOD thing because God commands it doesn't matter." Why? I did not realize we could toss out arguments on a whim. I've already stated that God is good--by definition. He is also sovereign over his creation. It logically follows that whatever he allows must be for good reason. I could offer speculations, but it's really extraneous. In the Christian worldview, God is good and is the standard of goodness. Anything and everything he does is good. The only way to show that animal suffering is an exception is to fallaciously inject non-Christian presuppositions into the Christian worldview. This is at the core of Kinesis' fallacy. He presupposes animal suffering is incompatible with God, but he has no warrant to do so. He is using atheistic presuppositions to show internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview. As I said in the last round, you cannot show internal inconsistency using external presuppositions. What we are left with is the concession that, given atheist presuppositions, the resolution cannot be proven and the failed attempt to show an internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview. I believe this is sufficient to consider the resolution negated. I want to thank Kinesis for this debate. Given the frustration in isolating the actual debate topic, I am willing to debate this topic again in order to focus on the internal consistency issue. Perhaps a resolution of "Animal suffering contradicts Christian presuppositions." It might help the readers understand, more specifically, the nature of the debate. I also want to thank those that have been following and commenting on the debate. I'm sure I speak for Kinesis when I say that we'd really appreciate feedback in the comments explaining your votes.