I ran across this on Google + recently, and thought it was worth sharing with my readers:
(By the way, speaking of Google +, don't forget to follow my personal page or my official blog page while you are there.)
Read the post with comments in it's entirety here:
This one is coming from Facebook with direct credit to Michael Z Williamson AKA Mad Mike so I quote
"The African Wild Dog:
The African Wild Dog is, of course, a dog. A pack hunter, they eat by chasing around a herd until they find a slow or young gazelle, then start nipping at it. Once they get a couple of nips at the hamstrings, the animal will usually stumble or slow. Then others attack, tearing bits from the thighs, genitals and underbelly, and proceeding to eat. Unlike the leopard, which usually suffocates its prey or breaks its neck, they will rip open the hide and consume the animal while it shrieks in pain for up to half an hour. Even the big Eland fear the Wild Dog, to the point where they'll approach human hunters with guns, risking a quick, humane kill over being eaten alive. They know what pain is, and they're afraid of it. They know humans generally find the dogs repulsive and will drive them off.
So here's my question: what purpose does this pain serve? How does humanity, the Earth, the universe, the prey or the dog benefit from an animal shrieking in agony as its balls and guts are eaten in front of its dying face? For what benefit would a "loving god" "intelligently design" this process?
Take your time."
This goes back to a question I have for personal reasons battled with a long time myself simply and not so simply why would a loving deity allow the good, innocent and undeserving to suffer. My reply to his post was that I had felt and seen too much suffering to even play devils (gods?) advocate even in jest.
What do you think of this argument? What would be the responses that advocates of creationism/intelligent design would try to counter with?
Hat tip to James Halfhorse, a Google + follower for sharing this.