The Logical Problem of Evil

[MarkRohfrietsch]

1. Topic: The existence of evil and the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God are logically incompatible and that since evil exists, it follows that God as described does not exist.
2. PsychoSarah will be arguing the affirmative and will begin the debate, Jeremy E Walker will be arguing the negative.​
3. The debate will consist of 5 alternating rounds (a total of 10 posts), and will proceed as follows: The opening round will consist of one post from each opponent with no word limit. This will be followed by three rounds with posts not to exceed 500 words. The final round will consist of one summation post each and like the first round there will be no word limit. These final posts will remain moderated until both opponents have made there final posts, and both posts have been approved by staff.
4. Maximum time between posts will be one week from the time that the post is approved (made visible).
5. Quotes from outside sources will be allowed, but must comply with the 20% rule.

The Peanut Gallery thread for those not participating in this debate can be found here: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate - The Logical Problem of Evil

 

[PsychoSarah]

First off, I would like to point out that my position is actually that an all benevolent, all powerful deity could not possibly exist in consideration of how the universe is, not all loving.

Now, onward. No one can deny suffering exists and that we experience it. Whether it be from sources generally out of our control, such as natural disasters and disease, or we inflict it upon each other as in cases of rape or murder. These experiences often lead to immense losses of life unjustly and with nothing gained in return.

Not that there is only suffering, there is plenty to experience in life beyond that, however, most if not all of the good things we enjoy wouldn't require pain or suffering in order to exist. Most of which would are things such as medicine, which are intended to combat what makes us suffer, thus their purpose would be rendered nonexistent were suffering not to exist. However, this sort of loss would not be felt as the benefits derived from medications and the like would be rendered null, we would all be better off than if medicine was advanced an additional 100 years.

Some say this suffering is meant to teach us, that we must learn from it, but what is to be learned on the part of the victims who die? One cannot possibly learn from that suffering if it kills them before they can even speak, as is the case with the death of infants. There are entire towns in some countries completely wiped out by disease or war, what did those victims learn from that suffering? Nothing, because they didn't live long enough to. In addition, an all-powerful being would have the means by which to set up our world so that these important lessons could be learned without any suffering at all. An all benevolent being would have the motivation to make it so. So how can one possibly see the suffering in the world and think that an all powerful being which could end suffering without anything else being lost, which also had the quality of being all benevolent and thus would have only motivation to eliminate suffering and not allow it to happen, could exist? Simply put, if said being were to exist, suffering wouldn't.

Some say, "but what of free will?" The free will of humans is limited no matter what. For example, I couldn't flap my arms and fly no matter how much it was my will to do so, the option isn't available to me. We have always been bound to our limitations. Thus, how much more of a violation of free will would it be to limit humans to being incapable of murder or rape, etc. If making us incapable of flying by flapping our arms isn't a violation of free will, then making humans incapable of actions which create suffering isn't one either. But even if it was a violation of free will, is the free will of murderers and rapists to harm other people more valuable than the well being of their victims? And it isn't as if the all powerful, all benevolent being would have to treat humans as puppets and make every decision for them, we could still choose what shirt we wear and who we marry, we just wouldn't be free to hurt each other. Is the freedom to do one another harm something worth having?

Further, if this being were to exist, regardless as to whether or not it actually created life or the universe, it would still have the capability to make the universe better. Why not simply make humans lack a desire to harm people? Then, even if the option to do harm existed, no one would choose it. If the whole point of suffering were to test people, well, why not skip the test and just make people who would only pass it on their own? There is no reason for murderers and rapists to exist and test the good people, just make all people good. This being would have the power to make this happen, and only motivation to make it happen, so if it existed surly this should be a planet of saints. But it isn't.

All observations of the universe suggest that a being which is both all powerful and all benevolent couldn't possibly exist. Sure, a being with one of those traits or the other could, as a purely all powerful being might not have the motivation to end suffering, and a purely all benevolent one might not have the ability to end suffering. But it stands to reason in a universe which contains suffering a being with both the ability to end suffering and the motivation to do it couldn't possibly exist.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Thank you PsychoSarah and thank you Mark for bringing us together in this formal debate on the problem of evil.

The problem of evil, hereafter referred to as PoE, is one argument against the existence of God that atheists have at their disposal. Broadly speaking, it is aimed at disproving the existence of the God of Christianity who Christians claim is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

There are two primary ways of looking at the PoE.

1. As an intellectual problem. One who claims it as such might say something like: “I think it is irrational that God would permit suffering and evil.

2. As an emotional problem. One who claims it as such might say something like: “I don’t like a God who would permit suffering and evil.

Since my opponent will be defending a version of the intellectual PoE, let us examine two ways in which it can be formulated:

1. As a deductive argument which seeks to show that God and evil are logically incompatible and that therefore it is impossible that God and evil could co-exist. This formulation is referred to as the logical or internal version.

2. As an inductive argument which seeks to show that the co-existence of God and evil is improbable. This formulation is referred to as the probabilistic or the external version.

Since my opponent made clear which version and formulation she was defending in her opening by saying:

All observations of the universe suggest that a being which is both all powerful and all benevolent couldn't possibly exist. Sure, a being with one of those traits or the other could, as a purely all powerful being might not have the motivation to end suffering, and a purely all benevolent one might not have the ability to end suffering. But it stands to reason in a universe which contains suffering a being with both the ability to end suffering and the motivation to do it couldn't possibly exist.

It is clear she is saying that evil and a God who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent could not possibly co-exist. Thus she is defending the deductive, logical version of the intellectual argument from the PoE.

Now what must my opponent do in order to show that God and evil could not possibly co-exist?

First let us start by saying that there is no explicit contradiction between the propositions:

1. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists

And…

2. Evil and suffering exists.

There is no explicit contradiction between the two. (2) is not the negation of (1) nor is it the contradictory of (1). So she cannot prove them logically incompatible that way. So if my opponent still desires to maintain that the two are logically incompatible, there must be some underlying or hidden assumptions or premises that would serve to bring out the implicit contradiction and make it explicit.

But what are these assumptions? Well, she touched on them in the paragraph I quoted above. The hidden assumptions are:

1. If God is omnipotent, He can create any world He wants.
2. If God is omnibenevolent, then He prefers a world without suffering and evil.

Now, in order to prove that it is impossible that God and evil could co-exist, these two propositions must be necessarily true.

This point is important so I will say it again:

In order for PsychoSarah to show that there is no logically possible world wherein God and evil co-exist, she must show that these two assumptions are necessarily true. This is to simply say that it is not possible that these two assumptions could be false.

Now one can begin to see the eeeeeenoooormous burden she has just taken on here.

Now after reviewing her opening post, I found no argument or reason she gave for thinking either of the above assumptions is necessarily true, let alone both. So rather than attack strawmen, I will let her respond to this in her next post.

In fact, to spare my opponent the trouble, I can go ahead and demonstrate why the first assumption above is not necessarily true, which is all that would be needed to completely dissolve the entire argument.

If it is possible that God created human beings as free moral agents with libertarian free will, then it is not necessarily true that God can create any world He desires for in any possible world God could actualize with free moral agents, it is possible the moral agents freely choose to commit evil.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on the topic:

"Since the logical problem of evil claims that it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist, all that Plantinga (or any other theist) needs to do to combat this claim is to describe a possible situation in which God and evil co-exist. That situation doesn’t need to be actual or even realistic. Plantinga doesn’t need to have a single shred of evidence supporting the truth of his suggestion. All he needs to do is give a logically consistent description of a way that God and evil can co-exist. Plantinga claims God and evil could co-exist if God had a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. He suggests that God’s morally sufficient reason might have something to do with humans being granted morally significant free will and with the greater goods this freedom makes possible. All that Plantinga needs to claim on behalf of (MSR1) and (MSR2) is that they are logically possible (that is, not contradictory).
Does Plantinga’s Free Will Defense succeed in describing a possible state of affairs in which God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? It certainly seems so. In fact, it appears that even the most hardened atheist must admit that (MSR1) and (MSR2) are possible reasons God might have for allowing moral and natural evil. They may not represent God’s actual reasons, but for the purpose of blocking the logical problem of evil, it is not necessary that Plantinga discover God’s actual reasons.

Here (MSR1) stands for “Morally sufficient reason 1” and is:

(MSR1) God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.


To conclude, I will allow the the author of the article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this topic to sum up my position:

"Since (MSR1) and (MSR2) together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and (moral and natural) evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil." - Logical Problem of Evil [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I.E.P. Article Author Information
James R. Beebe
Email: beebe “at” yahoo “dot” com
University at Buffalo
U. S. A.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Contrary to what Jeremy might be suggesting, I am not claiming this as an argument against the existence of deities, only against ones which are both all powerful and all benevolent.

Now, Jeremy seems to think I have to make assumptions for a being which has both these qualities to be incompatible with suffering. However, is it really an assumption to think a benevolent being wouldn't want suffering if it could be avoided? Is it really an assumption to think an all powerful being would be capable of ending suffering without making other aspects of the universe become lesser or lost? So where is actually the assumption that an all powerful being which is also all benevolent wouldn't end suffering? What Jeremy has done is made vague claims that I have made assumptions, without ever expressing how they are assumptions, or demonstrating how having these qualities and suffering can be compatible. He has only emptily claimed they can be, without actually demonstrating this to be the case. Exactly why would an all powerful being, which is also all benevolent, not end suffering since it could do so without sacrificing anything good the universe has to offer, and it wouldn't take any pleasure in the suffering or free neutral towards it?

Also, if suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and free will is absolutely paramount in having fulfilling lives, then what of heaven? Heaven, a place supposed to be inconceivably better than life on earth, a place which lacks suffering. A place supposedly created by god. If free will inevitably leads to suffering, then Heaven must lack free will, and therefore be lesser than being alive on earth. However, if Heaven is truly superior in every way to life on earth, then free will must exist there, and thus free will doesn't inevitably lead to suffering. That, or free will isn't all that enriching that heaven stops being heaven should we have it for just a blink in an eternal existence.

But then again, the choice to make people suffer wouldn't have to be eliminated to end suffering of the sort we inflict upon each other. After all, said deity is perfectly capable of creating only people who would be generous and would voluntarily choose not to contribute to suffering. It doesn't violate the free will of anyone, because those who would choose to commit acts of evil wouldn't exist to begin with, and I hardly can say one can argue for the free will of people who don't exist. Last time I checked existence itself wasn't a right as far as it was concerning god. Anyways, people could be capable of making each other suffer, without it resulting in suffering so long as said deity was smart about how it created.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

My opponent claims that evil/suffering and a God who is all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-benevolent (omnibenevolent) cannot possibly co-exist. I restated this at least twice in my opening post.

When I stated that there were underlying assumptions in my opponent's argument, I simply meant that there were underlying or hidden premises or propositions her argument stands on. So the term "assumption" simply means something that one maintains is, in this case, necessarily true. Label it as a premise, or a proposition if you have misgivings about the word "assumption".
You have certain underlying or implicit premises that your argument stands on. Take even one of these away and the argument is dissolved. I have shown that:

1. If it is even logically possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil/suffering, then it is not necessarily true that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would prefer a world without evil/suffering.

2. If it is even logically possible that God endowed humans with libertarian free will, then it is not necessarily true that God can create any old world that He wants.
This renders your argument doubly invalid.

To say that a proposition such as: God created humans with libertarian free will, is logically possible, is to simply say that the proposition can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true. Note that the proposition does not need to be either demonstrably true, plausible, probable, or realistic, but merely possible.

So all I have do in raising a defense against your premise that an omnipotent God can create any world He wants, is to furnish a proposition that is logically possible that demonstrates that your proposition is not necessarily true. The free will defense does just this. It states that if it is merely logically possible that God created humans with libertarian free will, then He cannot force humans to freely choose not to do evil. Thus in any possible world wherein God creates free moral agents, it is possible that said moral agents may choose to freely commit evil and inflict suffering.

Suffering is not a necessary consequence of free will, but a potential consequence. Once again, let me reiterate. Having free will does not inevitably lead to suffering, but can POTENTIALLY lead to suffering.

We can very well conceive of a world wherein God creates free moral agents that never commit evil. This is certainly possible. Is it feasible? It may be that in every possible world wherein there exist free moral agents, said agents freely choose to commit evil.

How does this relate to heaven? Well heaven is not to be looked at as a distinct possible world, but rather the final culmination of this world wherein those free moral agents who freely chose to endure suffering and trial in this vale of decision-making, reap the eternal rewards of their choices.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, my position will be destroyed if you can actually present just 1 logical way in which an all powerful, all benevolent being would allow suffering. Thus far you still have managed not to actually give an example of how this would work. Remember, in my posisiton, all powerful means said deity can literally do anything, without any limits regardless as to whether or not said actions seem logically possible. From my position, there are no limits of any sort on what an all powerful deity can do. Thus, said deity could set it up easily where people would make choices without those choices leading to suffering every single time without interfering with free will. There is no impossible for an all powerful being. Combined with the all benevolent property, and it seems highly illogical such a being would ever tolerate the existence of the unnecessary, distressful suffering we observe. An all powerful god can create any world it wants, or shape any existing world into what it wants, and what an all benevolent being wants wouldn't involve suffering, because benevolent beings don't like suffering. So you still have not shown how it is even possible for an all powerful and all benevolent being to coexist with suffering, when said being would not be able to stand suffering, and could so easily get rid of it without compromising free will or anything else good with 100% success every time.

And that is just the suffering we inflict upon ourselves and other, plenty of suffering is completely out of our control or we can only control it to a limited extent. Disease, natural disasters, and other nonhuman sources of suffering are rarely the consequences of our own actions, just pointless occurances of destruction, chaos, and death. We don't make earthquakes level cities, we don't make tornadoes tear through towns, we don't make hurricanes submerge regions. The environment around us may be a cause of more suffering than any we inflict upon each other, and it is unrelated to our actions. What justifies such suffering? It can't be another creator, such as a devil figure, because the all powerful, all good deity could easily remove such an entity or even set up experiences for that entity that, through its own will, would make it become better and no longer create suffering. It can't be the wrath of the all benevolent entity, because an all benevolent entity would never inflict suffering on purpose when it could just as easily find a peaceful means of showing disapproval.

So where is your 1 example of it even being possible for an all powerful, all benevolent being to allow suffering?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

....in my posisiton, all powerful means said deity can literally do anything, without any limits regardless as to whether or not said actions seem logically possible. From my position, there are no limits of any sort on what an all powerful deity can do. Thus, said deity could set it up easily where people would make choices without those choices leading to suffering every single time without interfering with free will. There is no impossible for an all powerful being. Combined with the all benevolent property, and it seems highly illogical such a being would ever tolerate the existence of the unnecessary, distressful suffering we observe. An all powerful god can create any world it wants, or shape any existing world into what it wants, and what an all benevolent being wants wouldn't involve suffering, because benevolent beings don't like suffering. So you still have not shown how it is even possible for an all powerful and all benevolent being to coexist with suffering, when said being would not be able to stand suffering, and could so easily get rid of it without compromising free will or anything else good with 100% success every time.

For those following the debate, I have taken my opponents last statements and placed certain portions in bold for you to examine.

The bold portions have my opponent claiming that God is without any limits regardless as to whether or not said actions seem logically possible.

If this is her view then there is no logical problem of evil, for God can bring it about that evil and suffering exist while He exists because anything is possible for Him to do.

Thus she has just destroyed her own argument. According to her, there is no logical problem of evil, because God can do the logically impossible, thus the issue of God and evil being logically incompatible instantly dissolves.

Thanks!

 

[PsychoSarah]

For those following the debate, I have taken my opponents last statements and placed certain portions in bold for you to examine.

The bold portions have my opponent claiming that God is without any limits regardless as to whether or not said actions seem logically possible.

If this is her view then there is no logical problem of evil, for God can bring it about that evil and suffering exist while He exists because anything is possible for Him to do.

Thus she has just destroyed her own argument. According to her, there is no logical problem of evil, because God can do the logically impossible, thus the issue of God and evil being logically incompatible instantly dissolves.

Thanks!

Except a being which is beyond logic cannot be comprehended, thus you cannot apply the trait of being all benevolent to it, because in order to be capable of anything, said being must be capable of evil. Said being must be capable of desiring evil. And to desire evil and suffering is to not be all benevolent. A being which is all powerful logically cannot be all benevolent, because all benevolence excludes all evil based actions, and an all powerful being cannot have such restriction.

A being beyond logic is incomprehensible, you can't actually claim it has any traits as a human being, because like me, you are limited in what you can understand. A being which is both all benevolent but is also capable of being all malevolent at the same time is incomprehensible, and it just gets worse and worse the more traits we do this with. You could perhaps attempt to get around this by saying that the deity in question is literally the universe, with benevolent and malevolent parts, but this still prevents the whole from being considered all benevolent.

In short, to be all powerful is to be capable of malice and evil, and to be capable of enjoying suffering is to not be all benevolent. To be all benevolent is to have limitations, to not be capable of evil, let alone enjoy it, but in order to be all powerful said being must be able to do exactly that. These traits are incompatible unless said deity is incomprehensible, and if said being is so incomprehensible as to be beyond logic, we should just end the debate with a big "we don't know" because we can't claim anything about what we can't comprehend to begin with.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

My opponent now claims that she cannot make any claims about God because He is incomprehensible.

She thus has admitted that she cannot defend her initial claim that God and evil are logically incompatible.

And how could she? After all, she claims God is incomprehensible!

Since she cannot defend her initial claim and since she has the burden of doing so, I see no reason to debate the issue further.

She has failed to show how God and evil are logically incompatible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Moderators Note....

According to the stipulations, both opponents may now post their summations. These summations will be approved (made visible) at the same time. There is no word limit for these final posts. The opponents have one week to post their summations, and if only one member posts within this time limit, their post will be approved and this thread closed.

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[PsychoSarah]

Illogical beings cannot logically be examined, thus Jeremy cannot even claim god has any qualities, that any deity would have qualities he could even manage to comprehend. Of course, by the workings of our universe, incomprehensible, illogical beings cannot exist in such a manner as to interact. He failed miserably as I tried to point out how it was impossible to be all powerful and all benevolent at the same time, because apparently Jeremy doesn't realize that a being which is incomprehensible by the logic and limitations within our universe isn't capable of interacting and existing within said universe. However, being sporting and enjoying debates, I chose not to spend most of my time showing how being all powerful in and of itself is not possible, instead showing how in addition it was logically incompatible for a being which would both want the universe to be without suffering and would be capable of removing it to allow the universe to have suffering anyways.

To sum it up, I have in this debate shown how a being which is both all powerful and all benevolent cannot exist in a universe and allow suffering to exist in two different ways, which sadly the latter was lost on Jeremy completely.

Disproof method 1: allowing the premise that the trait of being all powerful is even possible

-benevolent beings would not only not desire suffering, but would be motivated to get rid of it, and since an all powerful being could actually get rid of suffering without anything about existence becoming lesser as a result, it is illogical to conclude an all powerful, all benevolent being would allow suffering to exist when it could so easily get rid of it and by its verb nature wouldn't be able to stand suffering. It isn't logical to conclude suffering is a result or a requirement for free will to exist when said deity is supposedly all powerful, which means it can resolve any such conflict and easily make it possible for free will to exist without suffering with 100% success.

When Jeremy basically began to push that I couldn't possibly understand god, I decided to of course disprove the quality of being all powerful completely, because when people claim that over and over it is like talking to a brick wall which is also a broken record. After all, if they claim said deity can't be comprehended by me, it certainly can't be comprehended by my opponent either, based on the weak reasoning he gave for why I couldn't possibly comprehend whatever deity he had in mind, even though this debate wasn't supposed to be about any specific ideal of any deity beyond it having the two traits in question at the same time.

Disproof method 2: showing in multiple ways how all benevolence and being all powerful are incompatible traits (you can't be both at the same time because being one prevents you from being the other) and how the incomprehensibility of trying to say a being is beyond logic to try to bypass these logic issues in and of itself is incompatible with existence within our universe.

-to be all powerful means to be capable of anything, but all benevolent beings aren't capable of enjoying the suffering of others and just generally being evil. Since beings which are all benevolent are limited by their own benevolence to feelings and actions which aren't evil, they are incapable of being all powerful beings which are without limit.

-to be so incomprehensible as bypassing the above logic, to somehow have a singular being be both capable of being all benevolent and incapable of evil and yet also be capable of evil is to be outside completely of the rules of our universe, meaning that such a being cannot actually be in our universe because it would be incompatible with it. There is such a thing as impossible within our universe, in fact, this is why many people try to define being all powerful as meaning "capable of all things logically possible" rather than limitless, because so many people have come to realize that in our universe limitless simply cannot exist, even a deity could not exist and be able to supersede logic in every way. For example, it wouldn't be possible to create a square circle, because a circle is defined by having a shape which cannot be also square. Such an incomprehensible thing just cannot exist in our universe, it is incomprehensible to the point of being impossible, it is contradictory in a way that cannot be avoided. Since such a thing and many others aren't possible within our universe, nothing can exist within our universe with absolutely no limits.

I feel bad for you Jeremy, you spent this whole debate making empty claims about your own position, and barely read mine. I disproved your position twice and yet even at the end, you think you have won, despite never once showing your position to be valid yourself.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

To sum up:

The logical problem of evil in contemporary philosophy has been resolved.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Since (MSR1) and (MSR2) together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and (moral and natural) evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil. Logical Problem of Evil [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Even J.L. Mackie, one of the most well known proponents of the argument has this to say: "Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question." (Mackie 1982, p. 154) Logical Problem of Evil [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Again from the same article:

Mackie admits that Plantinga’s defense shows how God and evil can co-exist, that is, it shows that “the central doctrines of theism” are logically consistent after all. Logical Problem of Evil [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

In response to this formulation of the problem of evil, Plantinga showed that this charge of inconsistency was mistaken. Even Mackie admits that Plantinga solved the problem of evil, if that problem is understood as one of inconsistency. It is, therefore, difficult to see why Plantinga’s Free Will Defense should be found wanting if that defense is seen as a response to the logical problem of evil. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful. Logical Problem of Evil [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

From Wikipedia:

According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted. Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge.

Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of God and evil." Howard-Snyder, Daniel; O'Leary-Hawthorne, John (August 1998). "Transworld sanctity and Plantinga's Free Will Defense". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 44 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1023/A:1003210017171

William Alston has said that "Plantinga [...] has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing." Alston, William P. (1991). "The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition". Philosophical Perspectives 5: 29–67

William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", referring to Plantinga's argument. Rowe, William (October 1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism". American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (4): 335–41.

Among contemporary philosophers, most discussion on the problem of evil presently revolves around the evidential problem of evil, namely that the existence of God is unlikely, rather than illogical. Beebe, James R. (July 12, 2005). "Logical Problem of Evil". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I thank you all for following, Mark for producing the debate, and PsychoSarah for her participation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sarah and Jeremy,

Thanks for your final posts. This debate is now closed.

Mark
Staff Supervisor.