I hear that you are unable to make the connections, likely to being more 'concrete and operational' phase of existence, with limited ability to abstract. The arguments i have made are pretty straight forwards, but easier to access if you allow metaphoric discussion as oppose to absolute. I provided several leading authors who have countered every thing you have offered in terms of reasoning here.

If you do not see death as the ultimate suffering, even from a materialistic perspective, I doubt any further correspondence in this regard will lift you to a new perspective on the matter. If all there is is this material world, no soul life, then death is the final injury. I hope that I did not lead you to the belief I am a fan of reducing population. I am in favor of increasing, and creating kinder populations. I was merely observing sometimes death, the greatest injury, is also the greatest kindness.

I read you well, my friend. My arguments to you were to dialogue, not negate. I was not attacking you, but offering you additional things to consider. My response was intentional and deliberate. The scientific argument that animals have nerves is why they suffer as evidence for no God is weak. Human or animal, if they're brain dead, you can still poke a nerve and get a response, a reflex, but that not mean they are suffering. We would not be operate on animals or humans if you though every nerve cell damaged results in suffering. In demoting their person-hood, you have reduced animals to the state of robotics. There is only a mechanical response to stimulus. Cutting the wire than transmit signal isn't the harm. The signal itself is also not indication of suffering. Only the interpretation of signal can be suffering, if it's so considered. Pain receptor can fool the brain into perceiving pleasure. I am no more presuming a philosophy, than your philosophy against an alternative is your own thesis in theology. Only conscious beings can suffer. I know animals suffer because they are conscious beings, not robots. That state of affairs has nothing to do with god or the absence of god.

Your argument that neural scientist don't say what I said is flat wrong. I even gave you a book where neural scientist devoted every chapter to that thesis. In that book, with that thesis, you will also see a very interesting statement which should be scientific evidence to negate his and your thesis of no god. "If you tell people they have no free will, their behavior trends bad. If you tell people they have options, their behaviors trend good." The neurologist state they don't know why this is so, but the answer is morality. If people believe in a god or spiritual dimension, behaviors trend good. If they don't, behaviors trend bad. You can not even assert a philosophy of animal suffering without acknowledge preference of states, from good to bad, which ultimately leads to theology.

I am not unhappy that you made an argument. You're sounding it out, doing math, that's great. There's more to this. I was simply providing alternative that you have not considered.

If we are the dream characters of god, or a simulation, there is no suffering because there is no true substance to matter, any more than your own dreams have any substance beyond your conscious construction of those memes. That does not mean there is no consequences for bad behavior. In fact, it implies an absolute expectation that all behaviors will have consequences. Your existence in a paradigm is as nebulous as a dream, and no more real than any other perspective or paradigm, which adds to the faultiness of that reasoning. In espousing your belief, you're intending consequences, even if it is simply to encourage people to think as you do. You have a perspective bias. And fair enough, so do I. I am not calling you out for that. I was hoping that in discourse, somewhere between polarities we find common ground.

If you would like me to specifically respond to any of your negations of my point that I didn't address here, I would be happy to continue a dialogue- but I think you were honest in your initial statement that you don't understand me.

In that regard, and again, I wish you well on your journey. I hear that you are suffering because others, even animals, are suffering. That's sad. It's also good! Regardless of whether you elevate animals to soul, or regard them merely as robots, I find that the most loving and interesting thing about you. You're engaging an empathy, the highest virtue any society can promote. Yay you! I am glad you wrote this essay. It opened a door for you to find like minded people, and opposition. Do you care about the suffering of your oppositional patriots, or do wish to crush them in favor of only those who align with your vision? If the latter, I will not respond further, out of courtesy to your preference to zero variance.