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.

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.

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.

Firstly, let me lay out your argument as follows:
1. If God exists, and he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, then a world which animals suffer from human’s torture will not exist.
2. A world which animals suffer from human’s torture does exist.
3. Therefore, either God doesn’t exist, or he is not omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent.
Generally speaking, I think my concerns have regards to the second premise which states that animals are suffering from human’s torture, as I don’t think it is the case, or I should say that I don’t completely agree that human are actually torturing animals in some ways. You have clarified that animals are innocent, they are not capable of doing true evil, they didn’t ask to exist and they are good because they naturally follow their natures. I assume that based on these points, you think that God should not let animals suffer especially from human’s torture because if God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, then he will protect the innocent from pain. However, firstly, I don’t think the reasons stated above are credible enough to support that animals are innocent. If it is true that animals didn’t ask to exist, I should say that human didn’t ask to exist neither, for we don’t have any conscious before birth. It also seems not credible to say that animals are good because they naturally follow their natures; if it is the case, then humans are good as well because we naturally follow our nature, no matter what our nature is. If evil and torturing something is part of our nature and we didn’t ask for being born with this nature, and we just happened to have this nature, then it seems like that humans are also innocent, and we should be protected from pain as well. Secondly, I don’t think it is credible to assert that human is torturing animals. From theist’s perspective, I think they will agree and it is reasonable to refer to Genesis which God says that let human have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals. From atheist’s perspective, then it depends on personal beliefs, since there are lots of different attitudes towards this moral issue such as sentientism and biocentrism. Therefore, I keep skeptical about the question that whether human is torturing animals in a certain way or not. Above are my two main concerns about the second premise, and please let me know if you have any thoughts.