Logical Problem vs. Evidential Problem
The Logical Problem of Evil vs. The Evidential Problem of Evil
First of we have to clarify what both of these arguments are and what there are saying. The logical problem of evil explains that the existence of evil is not consistent with the existence of a God. The evidential problem is just the opposite. For example, in Rowe’s essay, he used the example of a suffering fawn. The evidential problem states that if there is an omniscient being, how could he allow this kind of suffering and evil? If there is an omniscient being, couldn’t he stop this kind of evil? That is there argument. But the logical problem tells us that there has to be some kind of good or well-being of suffering and evil. That this evil will lead to good. That is what they use to back up that argument.
The problem with the logical problem of evil is plain and simple to what you’re reading. The word logical is the key. We as people like to think that suffering and evil will lead to build morality and character. But where is the proof? A theist could also say that you can prevent suffering and evil by your own freedom and choices. But clearly that isn’t the case and anything could happen at any given moment. A counter-example is if a man was walking on the sidewalk and gets hit by a car from behind, and suffers and dies slowly. How can you prove that this incident was for the greater good? If there was an omniscient being how could he not prevent this or let him die instantly instead of suffering? That is the evidential problem of evil’s argument.
Now using the same problem, evidential problem of evil cannot be attributed to it because that is their own argument. Their argument is that evil could be prevented from even happening. But the problem is how can one omniscient being be in control of every situation known to man? Doesn’t that just seem impossible? Or is it not? There is a difference between to know how to prove that and how to have a rational meaning to believe that. With our
First of we have to clarify what both of these arguments are and what there are saying. The logical problem of evil explains that the existence of evil is not consistent with the existence of a God. The evidential problem is just the opposite. For example, in Rowe’s essay, he used the example of a suffering fawn. The evidential problem states that if there is an omniscient being, how could he allow this kind of suffering and evil? If there is an omniscient being, couldn’t he stop this kind of evil? That is there argument. But the logical problem tells us that there has to be some kind of good or well-being of suffering and evil. That this evil will lead to good. That is what they use to back up that argument.
The problem with the logical problem of evil is plain and simple to what you’re reading. The word logical is the key. We as people like to think that suffering and evil will lead to build morality and character. But where is the proof? A theist could also say that you can prevent suffering and evil by your own freedom and choices. But clearly that isn’t the case and anything could happen at any given moment. A counter-example is if a man was walking on the sidewalk and gets hit by a car from behind, and suffers and dies slowly. How can you prove that this incident was for the greater good? If there was an omniscient being how could he not prevent this or let him die instantly instead of suffering? That is the evidential problem of evil’s argument.
Now using the same problem, evidential problem of evil cannot be attributed to it because that is their own argument. Their argument is that evil could be prevented from even happening. But the problem is how can one omniscient being be in control of every situation known to man? Doesn’t that just seem impossible? Or is it not? There is a difference between to know how to prove that and how to have a rational meaning to believe that. With our