The atheist problem of denying man’s fallen nature is one of denying a proper understanding of the interiority of man.

I know of no atheist who denies that we are imperfect. What we deny is that there was a time when we were perfect.

All of that is undercut by what I've mentioned above: the design of the Garden of Eden and the New Heavens and New Earth.

These are places where full human flourishing was and is intended without severe pain, depression, alienation, confusion or death. Yet, only two people were able to experience the first one and then were everlastingly banished along with their descendants after just one significant rebellion. In the second environment, many billions will be there that did not chose it: miscarried/aborted babies, young children, the mentally handicapped and possibly unevangelized adults as well. The soul-making argument, the theodicy that claims the opportunities for character formation justify the monumental suffering that humans are confronted with as normative aspects of nature intrinsic before their arrival on Earth, collapses when the aforementioned details are taken into account.

Suffering is always an opportunity for change

As I look skyward a raptor brings me joy, for others not. Going to have to down vote this.

Let me ask you a question. Think of the most sublime joy and pleasure you can imagine. Would you trade one day of suffering the most excruciating pain that you could think of just so you could experience your day of pleasure?

How about just one hour of intense pain (how about throwing emotional pain in there too, like watching your spouse suffer too) for one day of perfect joy?

Worth it?

Mike
Edits done

The theodicy is simply that it is worth it. Time did not exist before the universe. Therefore change did not exist. Nothing became anything. Everything was what it was.

God is Creator. He could have continued having only heaven and not the universe. But He had an idea for a new creation where time exists and things change. Pain is part of the evolution; it's an awareness of a stimulus that demands a response; it can be terminal. But without it, we don't have life on earth.

God could have forgone this creation; He was encouraged to do so. But He decided it was worth it. Andy was worth it.

Suffering is not a commodity. Individual people experience it differently, have different concepts of it, respond differently to it. I've seen people take great suffering like it was nothing. I've seen people crumble under what seemed to me a minor annoyance. Suffering is always an opportunity for change. It's an integral part of who we are. How we respond to it determines our character to a large extent. Suffering really just ain't that bad. I certainly don't think it's a reason to forgo the universe.

I define personhood as something only found in humans.

With the exception of the spiritual aspect, nonhuman animals experience suffering as you defined it:

"Suffering connotes a duration or an emotional or spiritual nature."

Chimpanzees and zebras likely experience more depth of pain than rats and salamanders.

We can have a wide range of speculation about the intensity and comprehensiveness of pain and suffering, but modern science has discovered a lot of evidence to show that suffering and pain look very similar if not essentially the same among humans and nonhuman animals. Labeling what is for sure a biological experience in humans as including the spiritual as well is very hard (if not impossible) to justify.

Even if nonhuman animals could not experience suffering in the way you want to define it, that doesn't remove the burden of theodicy. In a way analogous to the pain for adult humans in comparison to infant humans or mentally handicapped humans, of which the latter two are not as "conscious" in the higher intellectual or maybe spiritual sense too, nonhuman animal pain is very significant and a true ethical dilemma for omnibenevolence.

Pain without suffering, if there is such a thing, is a huge problem for thestic ethics in the design and sustenance of nature.

We are equivocating terms, which is why I am trying to establish a definition of person that is distinct from animal and is not dependent on biology.

The word suffering is distinct from the word pain. Suffering connotes a duration or an emotional or spiritual nature.

Humans are capable of tremendous suffering on all levels: physical, psychological, and spiritual. Animals are capable of physical pain, and their behavior can be altered by pain. I stop short of saying animals suffer because they lack the depth of a person. When you apply the word suffering to animals I hear it as an equivocation where the word pain is more appropriate.

I don't think I have extreme views; I think I have precise definitions. I find that most discussions of philosophy need to begin with definitions of terms. Most questions are answered as terms are defined.

Do you have a definition of person? Is personhood what makes humans distinct from animals? If so, how does that differenciate human suffering from animal suffering? If not, what is the difference?

It's not about personifying animals.

It's very simple.

Of course, animals can feel pain. Watching creatures suffer should draw out compassion from the viewer.

Why do you continue with such an extreme viewpoint that denies a practical straightforward interpretation?

As I asked before, do cats and dogs not suffer when starving?

I'm not so sure that Bradley's example isn't a good one. As a Catholic and non-literalist I simply do not accept that God ever sanctioned, ordered or condoned any of that. But, and that was my point, we need to understand that there are several strong challenges mounted against the absolute morality argument, and that not everyone is a fan.

The definition you give for sentience includes subjectivity, which implies an ego, which in my definition of person I included as the locus of perception, intellect, and will. Can you draw any distinction between persons and animals? I do believe there is a metaphysical difference between them, but I do not believe this arbitrarily. I believe there are horrendous real world consequences of personifying animals.