The Problem of Animal Suffering (Round III)

I apologize for my absence next round. I was violently sick during the time that I would have posted. Remember, this debate takes place from within the confines of Christianity. :God doesn't care: I believe I was unclear in my last round here. God is very much concerned with people treating life in an ethical fashion (as is evidenced by the laws against killing animals inhumanely, the care of a shepherd for his sheep that was on an ethical level, etc. ). He may, as is evidenced once or twice in Scripture, care about animal pain. But God is far more concerned with man, as the entire Bible is dedicated to mankind, and He has given man dominion over the earth [1]. My opponent claims that God would reduce animal suffering to the greatest possible degree whilst still achieving other goals. My opponent provides no evidence against my previous claim that this world has these characteristics. For the world to exist, there must be natural laws. These natural laws must have consequences if one "breaks" them i. e. pain. This is distinct from human suffering, as humans have souls [1]. No matter how much we try to personify animals, they are still only animals. They do not look for higher meaning. They follow instincts and instincts only. They do not make moral choices nor bear responsibility. They are of infinitely less worth than a human soul [2]. "Are we to believe that there was no other way than this for a being with omnipotent power? " No. There were other ways. But, by God's own definition (agape), they must be ways that achieve a lesser good than this one. Animals are not people. God cares far more about people than animals. God cares far more about redeeming His penultimate creation than about saving all animals and people from pain. To rid the animal kingdom of pain would require Him to violate the order of the universe so far as to destroy it, and to destroy the possibility for mankind to freely choose Him. :Animals are a signpost: "Again, it seems extremely implausible that a being with omnipotent power could not have found a kinder way of communicating this to us. " There's probably a kinder way (assuming such language is appropriate referencing animals) to do this. But God doesn't give a jot about how sentimentally justifiable it is. He cares about how effective it is. While it's not the only way that God communicates this to us, it is absolutely necessary to get the message across. One human being, with an eternal soul, gaining salvation would be enough to justify all the animal pain that has ever existed, if for nor more reason than that animal life is temporal but the soul is eternal. The soul thusly has an infinitely greater value due to the fact that it's bliss or damnation will last an infinite time. "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. " Yes, but this would violate the very free will that is superlatively important to Christianity. A world of automata, or a world in which the only choice was heaven, would have no choice at all. Since the penultimate ethical command is to love one's neighbor as one's self, and love not freely given is no love at all, to take away choice is to take away the ethical command from which all others are derived [3]. This is also exactly what we'd expect to see from a God who valued order and choice, as I've shown. God is agape. Agape is the action of acting in the best interest of each and every soul. No, animals aren't included, since they don't have souls. God is not omni-benevolent, in the way that my opponent thinks. God is concerned with the eternal well-being of each person. Animal pain is not incompatible with his omni-properties. It merely shows that He would rather allow evil than take away the greater goods of choice and order. Sources in the comments section.