This post is not meant to be an exhaustive examination of the theological issues raised by animal suffering; rather, it is meant to highlight one particular issue.

Suppose we discovered that there are billions of planets in our galaxy that are inhabited by animals. A large percentage of these animals seem to be conscious and to be capable of experiencing suffering. However, none of these animals seem to be that intelligent or to be capable of much moral reasoning.

Further suppose we found that these animals suffer even more than the animals on Earth do. Predation, forest fires, and the many other things that cause animals to suffer are more common on these planets. Suppose we found that these facts are true regarding millions of other galaxies. Would this be evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god?

If one takes the common view that there is no afterlife for non-human animals on Earth, then it seems natural to conclude that there is no afterlife for these alien animals either. Going forward, I am going to assume that there will be no afterlife for these alien animals. I will call conscious beings for whom there will be an afterlife ABs (afterlife beings) and conscious beings for whom there will not be an afterlife NABs (no-afterlife beings).

A theist can say no amount of suffering of NABs is evidence against the existence of an omni god, but this seems counterintuitive to me.

If a theist says the amount of suffering of NABs described in the thought experiment would be evidence against the existence of an omni god, then one can ask the theist if the amount of suffering of NABs on Earth is evidence against the existence of an omni god. If the theist says the amount of suffering of NABs on Earth is not evidence against the existence of an omni god, then one can ask the theist to consider the following ratio:

(the amount of planets where ABs can observe the suffering of NABs)/(the amount of planets where the suffering of NABs cannot be observed by ABs)

One can ask the theist what the lowest possible ratio is that would not compel one to doubt the existence of an omni god. The purpose of this question is not to get the theist to give an exact ratio. Rather, it is meant to show the arbitrariness of saying that some amount of suffering of NABs would be evidence against the existence of an omni god, but that this threshold has not been met on Earth.

One can also ask the theist to consider the following ratio:

(the number of years during which ABs can observe the suffering of NABs)/(the number of years during which the suffering of NABs cannot be observed by ABs)

Similarly, one can ask the theist what the lowest possible ratio is that would not compel one to doubt the existence of an omni god.

If the theist says that an omni god allowing a certain amount of suffering of NABs can be justified by a certain amount of good that results from this suffering, then one can ask the theist what good results from the suffering of NABs. The theist can say that the suffering of NABs allows ABs to experience empathy and to become more compassionate. However, an omni god could have made animals philosophical zombies. If the suffering of conscious animals allows ABs to experience empathy and to become more compassionate, then the apparent suffering of p zombie animals would have the same effect. However, the assumption that all seemingly-conscious animals are p zombies is impractical and unethical. Someone who thinks all animals are p zombies cannot object to the torturing of animals so long as the torturing of animals does not cause humans to suffer. One could act as if animals are conscious but still be open to the possibility that an omni god made animals p zombies. However, I can’t imagine there being an afterlife where one finds out that all animals were p zombies.

The theist can say that it would be wrong for an omni god to make animals p zombies, and that human observation of the suffering of NABs has good results. One can ask the theist to consider the following ratio:

(the amount of good that results from the suffering of NABs)/(the amount of suffering of NABs)

Once again, one can ask the theist what the lowest possible ratio is that would not compel one to doubt the existence of an omni god.

The theist can say that an omni god wanted to make humans evolve from animals, and that the only way to do this was to create animals who would experience suffering. Once again, an omni could have made animals p zombies. If animals are conscious, and if an omni god created animals so that we could evolve from them, then the omni god created trillions of suffering animals so that there could be whatever benefit there is from humans evolving from animals.

I think theists must acknowledge that the suffering of animals poses a problem for theism.