*This is just a sort of "rough draft". Better (more clear and cohesive) version coming soon.*

I made an argument that one ought not praise a merciful God, who condones such savagery and cruelness in nature. I find it confounding, or baffling at the least, to credit such a Being. Here is my proof for it. Although I believe this is a matter of morality and not logicality, I want to argue this dialectically, so as to leave room for improvement for my own beliefs. It must be noted: assumptions must be made to get the argument rolling, i.e., the Principle of Charity. Therefore I will assume God exists. I will also assume God created nature, and those beings within. Finally, I will assume liberties and rights are universal (for the sake of simplicity).  

A necessary and sufficient condition for having interests is the capacity for suffering (p1). Human beings have interests because they possess the capacity for suffering (p2). Those beings similar to human beings that have the capacity for suffering have interests (c). Equal moral consideration must be given to those beings with the capacity for suffering, as is given to human beings (p1). Nonhuman animals have the capacity for suffering (p2). Equal moral consideration must be given to nonhuman animals, similar to those of human beings (c). Nonhuman animals are similar to human beings, in that both have equal moral consideration (p1). God created both human beings and nonhuman animals (a) (p2). In was in God's intentions for both human beings and nonhuman animals to have equal moral consideration, since it follows that what exists is presently in existence (c). Depriving one of their rights is wrong (p1). The right to live (i.e., not being killed) is a propriety right (p2). Killing is morally impermissible (c). Since human beings and nonhuman animals possess equal moral consideration, the belief that one has the essential right to live must be treated equally (p1). Depriving one of their life is morally impermissible (p2). Depriving a nonhuman being for their right to live is morally impermissible (c). Since it follows that killing is morally impermissible, it must follow that beings ought not condone killing (c). Both humans and nonhuman animals must be treated equally (p1). Killing any being with interests is equivalent to killing a human being (p1). Killing any being with interests is against God's intentions (p2). It is Biblically wrong to kill a human being (c1). It is equally, morally wrong to kill a nonhuman animal (c2).  

And here I would like to interject and give an example. A major problem in the poverty-stricken area of West Africa are Parasitic worms. These nonhuman animals live and feed off of other organisms, such as human beings, furthermore, children. They disrupt their hosts' nutrient absorption, causing infectious [but curable] disease. This disease will inevitably lead to early death. Presumably, as I have suggested be taken as an assumption, God created both the worm and the human being. 

It is wrong to deprive a being with interests, the right to live (c). Parasitic worms deny human beings the right to live (c). Both human beings and nonhuman animals must be given equal moral consideration (p1). Parasitic worms have interests (p2). It would be wrong to deprive parasitic worms the right to live (c). It is morally impermissible to cause early death (p1). Parasitic worms cause early death in human beings (p2). Both human beings and nonhuman animals must be given equal moral consideration (p3). It is morally impermissible to kill the parasitic worm, which is killing the human being (c). This 'conflict of morality' creates savagery in nature (c). God created both the parasitic worm and the human being (p1). This 'conflict of morality' exists in nature (p2). God must be credited for this savagery in nature (c). If it follows that it is wrong to deprive one of their right to life, it must follow, as proven, it is wrong to condone depriving one of their right to live (c). God condones savagery in nature (c). It is morally impermissible to praise one that condones savagery in nature (c). It is morally impermissible to praise God (c).

Thus:

P1- It is morally impermissible to deprive one of their right to live

P2- Savagery in nature goes against one's interests

P3- Savagery is morally impermissible

P4- God condones savagery in nature

C- Therefore, it is morally impermissible to praise a God that deprive's one's right to live

And therefore, I believe one ought not praise a merciful God, due to this 'conflict of morality'.