>>17774095>You realise that humans eventually will be able to create their own AI robots capable of mimicking pain, right?If you need to appeal to this sort of speculative nonsense in order to support your position then it's a sign you've already lost.
>Are you telling me that God couldn’t have made animals the same way?In a purely theoretical sense then yes, God could have made literally anything. But you have yet to provide any actual reasoning for the assumption that all non-human organisms are equivalent to "AI robots". And even if this were the case, what would be the point?
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that God did in fact structure the world so that only humans are capable of feeling pain. When any other animal displays a pain response, it's simply putting on a show for the sake of convincing human observers that the animal is feeling pain when, in reality, it isn't feeling anything at all.
Ok, so why did God do this? Because he knew that people would want to eat animals and it would be cruel to allow animals to feel pain
>>17772515? This is an omnipotent, omniscient God we're talking about. If all he wanted was to provide humans with cruelty-free meat, he could have made meat plants. He could make it occasionally rain meat from the sky. He could do literally anything; he's God.
The most likely motivation for God in this scenario, the Christian God who per scripture is endlessly fond of testing his worshippers, is to create these AI robot animals as a test of human empathy. All your senses tell you that animals feel pain when they're injured. Will you react with empathy, or will you invent an elaborate cope to justify continuing to harm animals?