Préciso of The Problem of Evil
In Rowe’s work, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, he discusses three interrelated questions which are the following:
1) Is there an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist?
2) How can the theist best defend his position against the argument for atheism based on the existence of evil?
3) What position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of theistic belief?
Before answering his question, he defines his view of theist and atheist. A theist is a being who believes the world was created by a single Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent being. An atheist alternatively believes the opposite and reject the idea of existence of this 3-O God. To answer his first question, Rowe first states a valid argument presented by an Atheists as followed:
1) …show more content…
2) The 3-O God would have prevented unnecessary suffering unless the God could not do so without losing a greater good or permit evil equal or worse.
3) The 3-O god cannot exist.
This argument is valid, but Rowe believes premises of the argument could be false. Starting with the second premise, he first lists conditions in which the 3-0 God could not have prevented an unnecessary suffering as following:
1) A greater Good occurs if and only if God does not prevent this unnecessary suffering.
2) A greater Good occurs if and only if God either permits unnecessary suffering or evil equal or worse.
3) Unnecessary suffering is preventable if and only if God allows some evil equal or worse.
These condition are held true to therefore the second premise can’t have been false, as it holds true for both atheist and theist depending on how they look at
In Rowe’s work, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, he discusses three interrelated questions which are the following:
1) Is there an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist?
2) How can the theist best defend his position against the argument for atheism based on the existence of evil?
3) What position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of theistic belief?
Before answering his question, he defines his view of theist and atheist. A theist is a being who believes the world was created by a single Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent being. An atheist alternatively believes the opposite and reject the idea of existence of this 3-O God. To answer his first question, Rowe first states a valid argument presented by an Atheists as followed:
1) …show more content…
2) The 3-O God would have prevented unnecessary suffering unless the God could not do so without losing a greater good or permit evil equal or worse.
3) The 3-O god cannot exist.
This argument is valid, but Rowe believes premises of the argument could be false. Starting with the second premise, he first lists conditions in which the 3-0 God could not have prevented an unnecessary suffering as following:
1) A greater Good occurs if and only if God does not prevent this unnecessary suffering.
2) A greater Good occurs if and only if God either permits unnecessary suffering or evil equal or worse.
3) Unnecessary suffering is preventable if and only if God allows some evil equal or worse.
These condition are held true to therefore the second premise can’t have been false, as it holds true for both atheist and theist depending on how they look at