You're viewing as a guest. Sign in to save progress and pick up where you left off.
Step 4 of 7~8 min read~29 min left
Rowe's Evidential Argument
Examine the most rigorous contemporary version of the problem of evil and the key responses.
“Rowe's ==evidential argument==: (1) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil. (2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil. (3) Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. [...] Skeptical theism response: our cognitive faculties are not calibrated to assess what reasons an omniscient God might have for permitting specific evils; our inability to see a justifying reason is not evidence that there is none. [...] Adams on horrendous evils: some evils are so terrible they defeat any local theodicy, the question is whether participation in Christ's suffering can constitute a redemption of meaning for the sufferer, not whether the evil was secretly good. — Rowe, 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism' (1979); Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (1999); SEP 'The Problem of Evil'”