Your argument was phrased in terms of animal suffering, prior to the existence of humans. Even christians who believe in evolution could expain human suffering in terms of the Fall. And I certainly wasn't thinking of the general problems of the Fall doctrine - more the huge weight of scientific evidence against a young Earth.
I would aslo add that even if nobody beleived in a cruel God, it would not make it impossible that such a God existed. Any general argument against the existence of A God has to deal with any Gods that could exist, not only Gods that are believed in.
quote:
This seems a little unclear to me. The "moral argument" against God is an argument about whether or not the (Judeo-Islamic-Christian) God exists. He doesn't exist because if He did,he would be cruel, and this God is not cruel. But our ideas about what's cruel are subjective, so they can't serve as evidence.
Perhaps I didn't understand your point.
My point is simple. According to you our ideas of morality are subjective only IF God does not exist. However if it is accepted that God does not exist then no further argument is needed (a God that does not exist cannot be cruel in reality). So, the argument is not hurt by modifying it to include the assumption that God does exist, which removes the problem. It's really a simple application of logic.
(I would further add that we do not need objectivity, only intersubjectivity. If we are agreed on what we mean by cruel and we agree that God cannot be cruel (as we mean it) it does not matter that the judgement of cruelty is not objective. It is only if "cruel" is so subjective that we cannot agree on these points that it would affect the argument).