The problem of evil has been examined by many philosophers and theologians over the years. In recent years, the evidential argument from William Rowe has inspired intellectuals to reexamine the problem more critically. In this text Rowe’s evidential argument will be examined premise by premise to determine if this argument is sound, and to do this some arguments against his position will be observed as well. Rowe’s main objection towards belief in God is founded primarily on the idea being if God is truly good and just, He would not tolerate gratuitous evils. Now, Rowe is very confident all people must ultimately confess there are evils which have occurred, and will occur again, serving no greater purpose, completely unbeneficial for humanity. The notion of unnecessary evils must be examined, and one must consider to what degree the evils tolerated by God help serve a greater purpose. If Rowe is correct about unnecessary evils being evidence against a good and just God, this will be revealed upon investigating the counterarguments to his claim.
To see the only possible hope for an answer with regards to the problem of evil please read the rest of the article in the link provided below,
0 comments:
Post a Comment