Regarding your explanation of natural evil, I have summarized your ideas and put it into the form shown as follows:
1. If God exists and he is omnibenevolent, then God will favor his creation equally.
2. If God favors his creation equally, then God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ survival.
3. Therefore, if God exists and he is omnibenevolent, then God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ survival. (1,2 HS)
Firstly, you have clarified that natural evil refers to things such as disease, earthquakes and tsunamis. You have mentioned that an omnibenevolent god will not favor one creation over another and will treat all creation equally, such as bacteria, fish, the rich and the poor. You have also included the example that human bodies are actually hosts to many parasites and lots of microorganisms live on corpses, and you said that “since god loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can’t take sides and so won’t intervene.” Following this example, you have inferred that “God permits natural evil not because he’s not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud…[god] being a good parent will not intercede regarding the ‘arrangement’ of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionally dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative bacteria”. Regarding the first assumption, I think it is problematic and self-contradictory. If god doesn’t play favorites with his creation and can’t take sides to intervene, then all creation are left in a free game, which the only determinant will be the nature of each creation, while each creation has very distinct nature. Human has very strong nature such as high intelligence and ability which surpasses almost any other creation, whereas creation such as bacteria has very simple composition. Given the great disparity in nature, it is not the case that god can favor each creation equally. Even if it is true that some of the natural evils such as diseases serve as opportunities for certain creation to live, it is still not equal, since most of the time human manages to defeat natural evils such as diseases and bacteria are killed; in such cases, it seems that god doesn’t favor each creation equally. Besides, regarding your second premise, I don’t think it is sufficient enough to explain all the cases of natural evils. As you have clarified, natural evils include not only diseases, but also earthquakes, floods and ect. Despite you can say that some diseases are reasonable because they are actually opportunities for some bacteria to live, it is not true with cases such as floods and earthquakes. I don’t think floods and earthquakes can be opportunities for certain creation’s survival, for they are so destructive. Even if they are beneficial to one creation’s survival, I think most of the creation including animals and plants will be harmed and so the cost is too massive, and it seems not possible for an omnibenevolent god to take such actions.

God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ — Isabel Hu

Come to think of it, not only as passive opportunities but actual instances of frank predation. Who's to say disasters don't have agencies behind them, agencies that feed on the bodies and even souls of the hapless victims? Mind you, my imagination is going wild but that's my problem. Feel free to poke holes, holes as large as your own reason and/or imagination permits. :smile:

Given the great disparity in nature, it is not the case that god can favor each creation equally. — Isabel Hu

This is an unfounded assumption. The battle, if I may call it that, between the organisms on this beautiful planet of ours is a no-holds-barred death match with god totally unwilling to assume the role of a referee, firstly because the "arrangement" has no rules - no rules, no referee required and, secondly, god loves us all equally - from worms that zombify their prey to cute, fluffy, bunny rabbits, saints and sinners, all, are equal in god's eyes. God doesn't favor any organism over the other. If fae did, a single organism, faer favorite, should be emerging "victorious" all the time. This is clearly untrue.

If you must believe that god's love isn't impartial then you can do so only if faer "favorite team" in death matches is nothing more than a choice based on his whims and fancies. Even this view eventually reduces to equal love for all creatures, big and small.

Disclaimer: the arguments presented here are my own and is meant to be purely exploratory and don't reflect my actual views. No offense intended. Thank you.

Thank you for your reply and elaboration on your argument. Firstly, to defend the point that God favors all creation equally, you have suggested that if God favors one creation over another, he will make that creation victorious all the time; it is not the case that a single creation is victorious all the time, so God doesn’t favor one creation over another, which also means that God favors all creation equally. I don’t think this assumption is reasonable enough. Favoring one creation over another doesn’t require God to make that favored creation victorious all the time; as long as one creation is victorious a bit more than another creation, God is showing his preference. Besides, you have also suggested that “the battle between the organisms…is a no-holds-barred death match with God totally unwilling to assume the role of a referee” by providing two reasons; one is that the arrangement has no rules and the other is God loves us all equally. The first reason seems a bit begging the question, for you haven’t justified that the arrangement has no rules. Regarding your first reason, I don’t think the arrangement has no rules; firstly, if God creates all organisms and attributes different natures to them, then it seems that these different natures themselves are part of the rules of the arrangement. You said that saints and sinners, rabbits and worms are all equal in God’s eyes, but how will you explain those distinct characteristics and natures of them? If God favors all creation equally, then why different natures and characteristics are attributed to different creation? Why there’s a food chain, which carnivore is above herb and why saints are born to be more morally divine than the sinners? It seems that these unequal and distinct instincts given by God are already setting certain rules among creation. Moreover, you suggest that God doesn’t want the role of a referee; however, I think morality is playing the role of a referee in a metaphysical sense. Morality regulates human’s behaviors and guides human to coexist with other creatures friendly and sustainably; it teaches us to protect other creatures including plants and animals. Without morality and given that human is such an intelligent and able being, I don’t think the world and environment will remain as harmonious as it is right now. Therefore, I don’t think that there is no role of referee, and if you believe that morality is given by God, then it seems to be more problematic with your argument.

*The arguments presented here are also purely exploratory and are not my personal views. No offense intended neither. Thank you and it is good to have this discussion here.

as long as one creation is victorious a bit more than another creation, God is showing his preference — Isabel Hu

You need to give me more than that to go on. What means this "victorious a bit"? Is this some kind of a game concept, like winning 3 out of a best of 5 matches in a competition? Perhaps we need to look into what being god's favorite entails.

Let's see how the notion of having a favorite in a competition pans out in the human world. I experience vivid images of young boys and girls, men and women, at a soccer stadium cheering for their "favorite" side. What's obvious, from the faces of people, once a winner and loser becomes clear, is, depending on who one's favorite was/is, either long faces or smiles from ear to ear. If one could, at that moment, interview the fans of clubs and teams, and ask them "do you want your team/club to win all the time?", what would they say, I wonder? The essence of fan's love/preference toward his favorite team is that they hope the team they like should always win.

Take a moment now to imagine god, an omniscient, omnipotent [let's leave out the omnibenevolent (notice anything?)] being having a favorite? God would have the power to ensure eternal victory, assuming that life is a struggle among, between living things, for his favorite, whatever life-form it is. This is clearly not something we see in our world - everything going on, as of this moment, and also in the past, and probably in the future, bears the mark of a world that hasn't been subject to any divine intervention at all.

The first reason seems a bit begging the question, for you haven’t justified that the arrangement has no rules. — Isabel Hu

All I can do by way of an explanation/proof is offer, for your consideration, the sentence, "nature is red in tooth and claw". Might as well throw in, "the law of the jungle". It appears that the justification for my claim comes from actually having observed the dynamics of life - there's nothing in the way animals and humans behave that suggests, if not that there are no rules/laws, that any of them, us included, is inclined to follow rules of any kind.

If God favors all creation equally, then why different natures and characteristics are attributed to different creation? — Isabel Hu

Free will. Good can't be mandatory, otherwise it isn't for the notion of moral responsibility is foundational to it. Ergo, we must be free to do evil and everything between. Thus, we see "...different natures and characteristics..."

Therefore, I don’t think that there is no role of referee, and if you believe that morality is given by God, then it seems to be more problematic with your argument. — Isabel Hu

I'm not sure how consistent what I'm about say is with what I've already said but I feel morality needs to be looked at differently. I prefer to read morality as more of a menu of possibilities rather than a list of rules. I mean God, for reasons unknown to me, endowed us with a sense of right and wrong i.e. he provided us with a menu of possible thoughts/actions but God, because free will is so important to owning your actions as yours, wouldn't have wanted to mandate/prohibit actions i.e. God would've preferred not to create a dos and don'ts list - that, I'm afraid, from the poor quality of the work, has "human" written all over it.

Firstly, before my elaboration, I would like to talk about the problematic part in your example. By giving the analogical example of soccer fans who have their favorite team and wish that team to win all the time, you have suggested that “The essence of fan’s love/preference toward his favorite team is that they hope the team they like should always win”; therefore, since there’s no one creation winning all the time, you don’t think God has a preference on a single creation. However, I don’t think this analogy is sound. After all, God is not a fan of his own creation, and showing one’s preference doesn’t necessarily imply that one wants his/her more favored one to win all the time. There are certain situations which the winner will make more enemies and will probably face severe challenges; in such cases, I don’t think one wants his/her more favored one to win, and they may even wish the favored one to lose in order to protect its well-being. Moreover, the final outcome doesn’t always reflect one’s true preference. For instance, one can favor chocolate cake over vegetables, but it is not certain that ultimately he/she will choose to eat the chocolate cake since he/she may choose vegetables which are healthier. Therefore, it seems that no one creation winning all the time isn’t sufficient enough to assert that God has no preference or God loves all creation equally.
Also, you have suggested that the mechanism of free will can explain why God attributes different natures and characteristics to different creation, as free will is crucial for beings to make their own distinct choices and actions. However, I don’t think free will being an important mechanism of human explains why God attributes different natures and characteristics to different creation, including lots of creatures other than human. I understand that it is reasonable to say that because of free will, people have different moral choices; however, free will, being part of human’s attributed nature by God, cannot explain why God gives the mechanism of free will to us but not other creation. Besides, regarding the topic of morality, I agree with you that since human has free will, we have various moral choices which will bring “a menu of possibilities rather than a list of rules” as you said. However, there are still lots of common moralities that almost all human beings agree on, no matter what cultural backgrounds we have. Some examples will be love your children and parents, and do not intentionally harm others. Therefore, as what I have said in my previous post, I think morality especially those common moralities serves as a referee in a metaphysical sense, since it at least gives human a moral direction if not a set of moral rules.

There are certain situations which the winner will make more enemies and will probably face severe challenges; in such cases, I don’t think one wants his/her more favored one to win, and they may even wish the favored one to lose in order to protect its well-being. — Isabel Hu

Well, I suppose you're right but, give it some thought, would creating enemies be winning? :chin:

Therefore, it seems that no one creation winning all the time isn’t sufficient enough to assert that God has no preference or God loves all creation equally. — Isabel Hu

:ok: My question is simple: what would convince you or what, to you, is "...sufficient enough to assert that God has no preference or God loves all creation equally"?

I ask because the very idea of having preferences for a God entails that there should be clear signs that one particular living thing (I suspect you prefer that to be humans) is being favored thus. There seems to be no evidence of this to my reckoning. You disagree. Why? What has convinced you that there's favoritism going on?

God, cannot explain why God gives the mechanism of free will to us but not other creation. — Isabel Hu

Why do you think "other creations" lack free will?

However, there are still lots of common moralities that almost all human beings agree on, no matter what cultural backgrounds we have. — Isabel Hu

These are choices that appeal to humans. Too, I think the whole idea of divvying people up into cultures, races, whatnot, and after having done that being surprised to discover similarities among these various divisions is a mistake. It's like looking at a bunch of dogs in an animal shelter and being amazed at how all of them bark and wag their tails. They're all dogs just as we're all humans, similarities should be expected, it's the differences that should cause concern.

I personally do not find the free will defense satisfying in any case of the problem of evil, however I recognize that is not the purpose of this post. From what I’ve read, it seems like your conclusion is that God permits natural evil because he is impartial to all of His creations. Your argument seems to go like this:
If God loves all of His creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
God loves all of His creation equally.
So, natural evil is just the result of impartiality.
I agree that if there were a god that loved all of his creation equally, then natural evil is just the result of impartiality. But if we are talking about the Christian God (which I believe we are), then I do not think this argument can stand. I think it is prevalent that the Christian God favors humankind over the rest of his creation, therefore the Christian God does not love all of His creation equally (denial of premise 2). First, God created man in His own image. To make something in one’s own image seems to reveal a great deal of pride or honor for whatever is created. In other words, if God likes the birds just as much as He likes us, why did He not make the birds in His image? Second, in Genesis, God explicitly says that man has dominion over animals. This can be debated and interpreted in many ways, but it certainly does not say that man is equal among animals. Third, if God cared equally about each of His creations, He would have made a more level playing field. Even among just the fish in the sea, there are creatures that have a greater ability to survive than others. So, if God loves us all equally, why would He make mankind so much more advanced and powerful that all other creatures?

I personally do not find the free will defense satisfying in any case of the problem of evil, however I recognize that is not the purpose of this post. — Emma

It's an integral part of the OP insofar as moral evil is concerned.

I think it is prevalent that the Christian God favors humankind over the rest of his creation, therefore the Christian God does not love all of His creation equally (denial of premise 2). — Emma

I can see where you're coming from on this issue. I myself stated in a thread not too long ago about how humans, endowed with this magnificent organ - the brain - can, has, and probably will beat the competition any time. With our technology we've dominated the world in a never-seen-before kind of way. In short, humans, with their brains, seem to be emerging on top in the evolutionary struggle for survival - we are, in more respects than I care to mention, the fittest in a world with one rule: survival of the fittest.

However, take a moment to take in the current knowledge we have on ecology and the environment. What's the general consensus in your opinion? What have we learned from the past 100 years or so of careful observation and analysis of our ecology and the environment? To my reckoning, from all our studies in these fields, the takeaway is this: our environment is a finely balanced system - each living organism, be it plant, animal, microbe, whatever, has an important role in maintaining the health of an ecosystem. Remove one or more players in this game and there are consequences, consequences that take the form of disequilibrium and disharmony in ecosystems that can, eventually, lead to catastrophic collapse of entire biospheres. Does this, in any way, give you the impression that one particular organism is being favored over another? In fact a case can be made that humans, capable of destroying the environment at unprecedented scales and speeds, are, in this sense, an illness, a disease, that's plaguing all life on earth but that's another story.

either believe that god wants us to "rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground" and conclude that god isn't omnibenevolent — TheMadFool

Sorry for the late response.

From this statement, it seems like you are asserting that the concept of human dominion over creation is somehow incompatible with an omnibenevolent God. And in general, as indicated in your original post, "an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation". I think your assumed premise can be succinctly summarized as the following

1. If God plays favorites, then God is doing something not good.
2. God plays favorites (God gives human dominion over creation)
c. Therefore God is doing something not good, thus cannot be all good (omnibenevolent)

Hopefully this is a faithful reconstruction of the main premise of your argument.

Premise 1 hinges on the assumption that favoritism is a bad thing, and this is where I disagree. Although I believe that it can be a bad thing, I don't think that it is always a bad thing, and in fact is sometimes a very good thing. You provide the analogy of a parent/children relationship, where a good parent will love all of their children equally, and failure to do so would be bad. We are on the same page in this regard. However, lets say we throw Scout (the family dog) into the mix. If the parent in this situation were to somehow treat Scout and the other children equally, we would definitely have to conclude that this is a bad thing. The badness seems to arise because we place an inherently lower level of worth on Scout (because its a dog), and we place a higher level of worth on the children.

In the same regard, within Christianity and other mainline religions (aside from Eastern religions that emphasize reincarnation - Jainism especially), humanity is the favored creation because God places the highest worth in us. Thus, favoritism towards humanity should be seen as a necessary attribute to an omnibenevolent God rather than incompatible.

I realize this isn't a direct comment to your argument, but I stand by my previous comment and think this is the primary area where your argument breaks down.

re your op your only support is your good parent analogy and thus your failure too A parent will alleviate harmful competition among her kids. God does not. Therefore gods does not do his job right as a parent thus he tolerates evil and he is responsible for evils happening. Sorry I’m typing from a phone.

From this statement, it seems like you are asserting that the concept of human dominion over creation is somehow incompatible with an omnibenevolent God. — Daniel Ramli

More or less, yes. I'm fairly certain, by and large convinced, that inequality in any way, shape, or form is immoral. In saying this I haven't strayed off course from our intuition on the matter, the intuition best exemplified by the words "all men are created equal" enshrined in the American Constitution. My view on equality is but an extrapolation of the spirit of this statement and becomes "all creatures are created equal". Last I checked, "all men are created equal" remains unjustified and is to be treated as a self-evident which to me is a big disappointment because something as morally important as equality has been stated sans proof.

At this juncture a point of clarification is needed. The sentence, "all men are equal" or the sentence "all creatures are equal" doesn't mean that there are no differences among men and among creatures; surely there are differences - among humans skin color, facial features, height, etc. vary and a similar point can be made if one includes other creatures. What these sentences mean is that we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals i.e. in a sense, the equality, is, quite literally, pulled out of thin air but for a morally worthy purpose.

In my own small way I'll attempt to justify, give a proof of, why we should/ought to treat both that all men are equals and that all creatures are equals here. The reason why we should/ought to treat/consider all men as equals and all creatures as equals is that if this were not done then that's just another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with inequality. If that's the case and given that inequality is relative in the sense a particular creature can be both inferior and superior, the status hanging on the who/what that creature is being compared to, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we might find ourselves on the wrong side of an inequality [we could be inferior to another creature, an alien perhaps] and if, god forbid, this happens, we would have no convincing argument to demand our freedom or to make a plea for better treatment.

Scout (the family dog) — Daniel Ramli

To understand my point, I suggest you imagine a being superior to us and we are its pets just as Scout (the family dog) is ours. If you accept inequality prepare to be treated unequally.

humanity is the favored creation because God places the highest worth in us. — Daniel Ramli

Let's take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. God, for certain, is superior, in every respect conceivable, to us. Surely then, by your logic, we're lesser beings and God can treat us in any way fae likes - treat us like dirt for instance, very similar to how we're treating other creatures on the planet. After all you claim that there's nothing wrong with favoring one being over another which basically boils down to this: inequality is acceptable. God surely favors himself above all else; he must for he is, by definition, greater/better/superior in all respects than/to humans. Perhaps, all this evil we see around us is just god favoring himself over humans then. Problem solved!

Therefore gods does not do his job right as a parent thus he tolerates evil — god must be atheist

I think you've misunderstood the analogy. When I refer to God as a parent, I mean only in the sense of faer love - all encompassing - for faer children - all the creatures in the universe. From that all-loving, omnibenevolence, follows god's unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and hence the evil - moral and natural - we see in it. Au contraire, God has fulfilled his role as a parent quite well, not just quite well but actually to perfection. Equality is an essential part of morality and God's upholding that in spirit and in letter.

I think you've misunderstood the analogy. When I refer to God as a parent, I mean only in the sense of faer love - all encompassing - for faer children - all the creatures in the universe. — TheMadFool

It is interesting how little credit you give me in understanding your concept of parallel between god and a parent.

My point was you can't STOP suddenly in this analogy. "Parent loves her children equally, gives them equal shares of her love" is NOT equivalent, yet you make it equivalent, to "Parent gives resources to her much beloved children, then lets them fight among themselves who gets what; parent at this point does not interfere." Well, a parent DOES interfere, and god, apparently, if he existed, does NOT interfere.

All I am saying is that the parent analogy does not work. You borrow some parts of the parent analogy, and you reject another part. That's NOT how you employ analogy. It's reminiscent of the cherry-picking nature of bible studies.

Consequently, what you seem to not understand, is that an omnibenevolent god would not let suffering happen in a world he created. If precious resources are fought for, to the loss even of life and to the loss of great suffering of some participants,then it is obviously the creator's fault, not the participants' fault, that they need to fight for resources.

If god loves the ebola virus as much as humans, and you are not mistaken, then god would have created a world in which ebola viruses thrive happily and the humans thrive happily. "The lion lies down with the kid." Obviously on some level this world arrangement exists. Only an evil-minded creator would have created some world in which things don't work that way. And our world does not work that way. Therefore:

either god is not omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, or the creator.

I really, really, don't understand how you can't see this. EVIL SUFFERING EXISTS ONLY BEAUSE IF CREATION TRULY HAPPENED IN THE HANDS OF A GOD, THE GOD WAS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT OR ELSE HE WAS INCAPABLE TO FULFIL HIS OMNIBENEVOLENT INTENTIONS. EITHER HE COULD BUT DECIDED NOT TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD, OR ELSE HE WANTED TO, BUT WAS INCAPABLE TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD. OTHER POSSIBILITIES DON'T EXIST.

From that all-loving, omnibenevolence, follows god's unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and hence the evil - moral and natural - we see in it. — TheMadFool

I don't understand the logical link you employ, and I think it is not true, when you say (paraphrased) that "omnibelenevolence necessitates non-interference." No, it does not necessitate that. Why would that be necessary?

If god is omnipotent, he could design ways to keep everyone happy and nobody harmed. Like I said, even a five-year-old child can create a mental image of such a world... why can't then god? I don't think this is a contradction at all, it is a quality of omnipotence to create worlds and the attributes of the worlds at his will and motivation, and one of the motivations in omnibenevolence. Yet the world does not reflect to be a system with benefits to all. Not only are we NOT equal, and not only do we, creatures, not consider each other equal, but because of that, we make each other suffer. Where has the omnibenevolence gone in this system? Nowhere. It has never been part of the system. Therefore god is either not omnibenevolent, or the world is not created by god.

Hi TheMadFool, I do not think that your argument really works. I think that you are arguing something to the following effect:
1. All creatures are equal to God.
2. If all creatures are equal to God, then God would give all creatures the opportunity to thrive.
3. If God would give all creatures the opportunity to thrive, then natural evils that cause death would give certain creatures, i.e. bacteria and parasites, the opportunity to thrive.
4. If natural evils that cause death would give certain creatures, i.e. bacteria and parasites, the opportunity to thrive, then God, in spite of the natural evils, is still good.
5. Therefore, God, in spite of natural evils, is still good.
If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I find fault with premise four. I agree with the antecedent of four, yet I think that the consequent is not likely to be true since God still does not look to be good. For instance, imagine that a tsunami hit a coastal town in Indonesia and killed ten thousand people. Sure, the bodies will turn into food for the bacteria in the water and other creatures. It is a fortunate outcome for them, yet this is not so for the ten thousand people who perished. I think you would agree at some level that a human person is worth more than bacteria. If so, then much evil was done by the tsunami and God does not appear to be good since God let precious lives be lost to, from an anthropocentric point of view, replaceable creatures. Even if you do not agree with the assumption that humans are worth more than other creatures on this planet, this still does not acquit God. In the tsunami scenario, many creatures underwent suffering and death. There is some party that had some, arguably, very evil thing done to them that does not seem warranted in any sense. Thus, it is questionable if God is indeed good.

Thanks for your comment. If I catch your drift, your claim is that God isn't good because "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" and the death of thousands in a tsunami, a natural evil, just to feed bacteria isn't morally justified. Ergo, my argument that natural evil serves as a method of providing corpses and even living bodies (for parasites/infections) of any organism, not just humans mind you, that become the means of survival for other life forms is flawed.

The basic idea behind the "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" is that humans possess something that bacteria (representing all non-human life forms) don't. Whatever this something is, it becomes the reason for claiming "...a human person is worth more than bacteria". If I were to hazard a guess, 1) consciousness/sentience and 2) the ability to suffer are at the top of my list of differences between humans and bacteria. I know that both these abilities (sentience and capacity to suffer) exist on a continuum with no clear and distinct cut-off point between sentience, suffering and non-sentience, non-suffering but assume there is one and that on one side of it is humans (sentient and able to suffer) and on the other side, all other organisms (non-sentient and unable to suffer). Note, I haven't said anything that, even if we have doubts on the matter, we don't see in everyday practice - the rule of thumb, the unspoken rule, is no animal is worth a human.

So far so good.

Firstly, recognize that the two criteria I mentioned above viz. 1) sentience and 2) the ability to suffer are missing in other life forms is an unfounded assumption. How do we know that? Is there any proof that bacteria are not sentient or that they don't feel pain? Granted that current scientific knowledge doesn't support the claim that bacteria (representing all non-human life) are sentient or that they can feel pain for the simple reason that they lack a nervous system but that's speaking from a standpoint of what we know and overlooking the much bigger what we don't know. Our ignorance is greater than our knowledge by many orders of magnitude. In short, if we factor in our ignorance, any claims that bacteria are not sentient or that they don't feel pain is symptomatic of an illness we all have encountered in our lives: know-it-all-ness (to think that one knows everything when actually one doesn't). I'll mention but not discuss the problem of humans mistreating some non-human life that do possess a nervous system (possibly sentient and capable of feeling pain) which is clearly immoral by the very standards that we ourselves have set. If all this says anything it's that humans haven't quite figured it out yet i.e. our ignorance seems to play a bigger role in our behavior than our knowledge or, worse, we simply don't give a damn about what we know or what we don't know or about what's good or bad and all this highfalutin talk of morality, sentience, the ability to suffer is nothing more than a sham designed to make ourselves feel better about our mistreatment of non-human life. Basically, there's no solid reason for the claim "...a human person is worth more than bacteria"

Secondly, The belief that "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" entails/requires that we must, if faced with beings worthier than us just as we're worthier than non-human animals, be ready to accept anything and everything such beings do to us. After all, these beings, yet hypothetical but not impossible, are, will be, by our standards, worthier than us. Supposing such beings are called Val, the sentence "...a human person is worth more than bacteria" will change into "...a Val is worth more than humans" and that'll open the doors, presumably to hell, for humans - it'll spell our doom.

Thirdly, essentially continuing along the same trajectory as the first and second points and summarizing them, take the allegedly ubiquitous moral rule, the so-called Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated. I don't know how far this is true but it's a moral code that's found in all cultures and civilizations. Its premise is, and this is key to my argument, to put yourself in the other person's shoes i.e. to assume you are the other and think on how you would like to be treated. In the context of this post, you are, if you follow the Golden Rule, to assume that other non-human life forms possess sentience and are capable of feeling pain and then to tailor your behavior according to that assumption. In the context of worth as expressed in your statement "...a human person is worth more than bacteria", you are to assume that bacteria are as worthy as a human person - that is the Golden Rule. It appears that, Golden-Rule-wise, it's necessarily immoral to think/claim/assume that "...a human person is worth more than bacteria". God is, hopefully, still good!

Imagine yourself to be a parent and you'll know how painful it is to take sides when your children get into a fight. You can't hurt either, so you can't aid either. — TheMadFool

You can hurt both, for instance, by "creating a household" (i.e. existence) that not only puts, but also keeps, them in opposition. :shade:
Again:

In no sense is a parent deemed "good" who is "impartial" to the point of allowing her "children" to prey upon, torture & cannibalize one another. — 180 Proof

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

:point:

You have mentioned that an omnibenevolent god will not favor one creation over another and will treat all creation equally, such as bacteria, fish, the rich and the poor. — Isabel Hu

I think your point is clever. That said, you are giving us a philosopher's god. This is a late concept, which has drifted from traditional human-centric conceptions. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but my objection is that defenses of God tend to be (cryptically sometimes) a defense of particular gods from particular religions whose gods favor humans who live in particular ways. You may know all this and just be having fun with concepts.

And such tribal deities it's exceedingly easy to demonstrate are fictions (or more likely than not just (fetishistic) shadows & empty names); thus, the advent of philosophical deities (e.g. dao, brahman, logos, śūnyatā, waḥdat al-wujūd, etc) as translations of tribal Names of unlearned laboring masses into sovereign Principles for educated leisure castes.

as translations of tribal Names of unlearned laboring masses into sovereign Principles for educated leisure castes — 180 Proof

:up:

Do you think there's a complete escape from this structure? Or just intensities of sublimation?

"Just intensities of sublimation". (Cool funk punk jazz band name :smirk:)

Same here, and yeah that would be a good band name.

More or less, yes. I'm fairly certain, by and large convinced, that inequality in any way, shape, or form is immoral. In saying this I haven't strayed off course from our intuition on the matter, the intuition best exemplified by the words "all men are created equal" enshrined in the American Constitution. My view on equality is but an extrapolation of the spirit of this statement and becomes "all creatures are created equal". — TheMadFool

I'm not one to step on non-threatening spiders, but what's the practical gist of such equality? Is wiping the place where my dog had diarrhea with bleach the mass murder of E. Coli ? Should a Wal-mart cashier tolerate roaches in their kitchen in solidarity with other creatures who just want to get by? Should cops spend more time arresting cats who kill birds?