Rowe's False On The Existence Of Evil

Atheists often turn to the evidential argument of the problem of evil. This argument directly enhances Rowe’s first and second premise in which lead to the consolidation of the third. To discuss the evidential argument, we will first look at premise 1 of Rowe’s argument.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

In this paper, I will describe Mackie’s argument claiming that believers in an omnibenevolent God are irrational and I will oppose Mackie’s argument. The Problem of Evil states that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (blackboard paper). According to Mackie, only two parts of the statement can be true at one time. “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then He is not malevolent.

Rowe’s argument maintains that the presence of evil and the suffering, unfairness, and chaos it brings to the world negates the existence of God. He questions the existence of an omnipotent God that does not put a stop to unimaginable evils such as the Holocaust, 9/11, and the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre. If God does exist, then why are atrocities not stopped before taking place? Why are not innocent beings spared, protected, or hurt to a lesser degree? If God is aware of malicious intent is it not logical and expected for this evil to be eradicated or intercepted in some manner by him? Rowe sees evil as being pointless and existing due to the absence of a God that can obliterate it.

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

God is therefore the creator of everything in the universe without being created himself by anybody and also the author of everything in our daily life including our physiological function such as life breathing and natural phenomenon such as sea movement and hurricane. Because of all these features, god is said to be all-knowing, all good, and all powerful. For Blackburn, this type of god does not exist. The reason why this claim is denied by Blackburn lies in its false conclusion. By considering the god to be all-knowing, all good, and all powerful, as premises, a logical conclusion can only be there is no evil on earth nor in the universe. This makes sense since everything is done by god and whatever he does is good and for the fact that he knows everything. And as consequence there is no evil on earth. But a simple look around our daily life will show the total opposite of this conclusion. There are more and more evil on earth such as wars, criminalities, disasters. All these are evil things. This contrast between fact in real life and the logic conclusion of the premises makes one of the premises at least to be wrong. Either god is all-powerful

That is, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the stated premises are true. The second premise of the argument is held by both theists and atheists since it expresses a belief that aligns with our basic moral principles that are common to both theists and atheists. It follows then, that the critical premise that the argument depends on is the first premise. To prove the first premise, Rowe gives the example of a lightning striking a forest and starting a fire. In the fire, a small fawn is burned and lies in agonizing and excruciating pain for days before death relieves it from its suffering (337).

Logically, can Evil and the “three-O” God co-exist in this universe? The deductive argument from evil says they cannot. In this essay I will explain the argument and analyze why it is valid but unsound. I will do this by discussing fallacious nature of the premise that if God were omnipotent and knew he could prevent the existence of evil without sacrificing some greater good he would then necessarily prevent it. The essay will propose the following evaluation of the deductive argument from Evil: that each premise logically follows from its antecedent, but that the concepts in the premises themselves are not entirely understood and can be refuted. God’s Omni benevolence,

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

It is this learners goal for this paper to prove that God cannot prevent evil while preserving human free will, that the existence of both evil and God is possible, that it is impossible for God to constantly intervene and preserve the universe. Lastly, Christianity is the only practice providing meaning of life. This learner will attempt to prove these positions by analyzing the writings of Tom Morris, C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. Through this essay, this learner plans to bring a sound philosophical theological understanding of how both God and man (His creation) function in theory with each one another.

The one idea that I found particularly interesting in the readings would be God and two types of evil in section 2.3. There are some people in this world that feel very hesitant about the existence of God because they believe the customary arguments into believing God is implausible and there is no other evidence about God that seem credible. On the other hand, other people use a very strong and common argument against God’s existence by using the argument of evil. The argument of evil would ask questions like if the almighty God is real then why such suffering and pain that many people have to go through every day as well as if God exists then why is he allowing sorrow and agony into this world that he created. Well, it is said that there are two types of evil in this world according to philosophers and theologians: moral evil and natural evil.

Although a person may claim that it is rational or justifiable not to believe in God, the apostle Paul tells us otherwise. In Romans 1:20 he writes that no one has an excuse for not believing in God because all creation declares His person. As well, King David expressed a similar statement in Psalm 19:1