Rowe's False On The Existence Of Evil

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.

Ten children are killed every day in the United States by guns; people are murdered senselessly; Columbine High School; Over one-third of middle school children in Cascade County have used illegal drugs and over one-half have tried alcohol; innocent people in foreign countries are being wiped out (Kosovo); The Holocaust; Hiroshima; Vietnam; poverty, starvation and oppression in third world countries; Capitalism; environmental decay and neglect; the media; Oklahoma City; the uni-bomber; earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, airplane crashes; domestic/child abuse; disease, birth defects and mental disorders. Why?Why?Why?… The question never changes and is asked over and over and over and

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.

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.

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).

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.

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

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,

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.