After the failure of the logical problem of evil (deductive argument) to demonstrate the impossibility of God’s existence given the presence of evil in the world, atheists have largely turned to the evidential problem of evil (inductive argument) to provide a probabilistic argument against the existence of God. Whereas the logical problem of evil argued that the mere existence of evil in the world proves God cannot exist, the evidential problem of evil argues that the amount of evil in the world is so great that it is highly improbable that a good God exists. Those who advance the evidential form of the argument claim that if the amount of evil in the world reaches some threshold, then it is no longer reasonable to believe that a good God exists—and of course, they believe the amount of evil in the world has reached this threshold. The argument could be stated as follows:
(1) The probability of God’s existence is commensurate to the amount of evil in the world.
(2) The probability of God’s existence declines as the amount of evil increases
(3) There is much more evil in the world than we would expect there to be if a good and all-powerful God existed
(4) Therefore, it is improbable that God exists.
What advocates of this argument fail to recognize is that the evidential problem of evil has to assume that there is a logical tension between the existence of God and the existence of evil, such that certain amounts of evil in the world should cause someone to conclude that God probably does not coexist with evil. In so doing, they are borrowing presuppositions from the logical problem of evil, which makes the evidential form of the argument parasitic on the logical form rather than a separate argument that stands or falls wholly on its own merits.[1]. I’ll come back to this in a moment when I take a deeper look at premises 1-2 of the argument. For now, I’ll focus my attention on the subjective nature of premise 3.
A Pound of Subjectivity with a Dash of Circularity
Premise 3: There is much more evil in the world than we would expect there to be if a good and all-powerful God existed.
While advocates of the evidential argument (“Advocates”) invariably believe the amount of evil in the world has reached the threshold by which God’s existence can no longer be considered probable, the threshold itself is ill-defined and entirely subjective. No objective basis is provided for determining what the threshold should be, or how we can objectively assess whether the amount of evil in this world is less than or greater than that threshold. It is just assumed that it will be obvious to all that there is too much evil in the world to think that a good and all-powerful God exists.
One could agree in principle with Advocates that the probability of God’s existence can be assessed by measuring the amount of evil in the world (premises 1-2), and yet disagree that the actual amount of evil in the world is sufficient to conclude that God’s existence is improbable (premise 3).[2],[3] Advocates could register their disagreement with that assessment, but without objective criteria for determining both the threshold and the means by which we determine if the amount of evil in the world has reached that threshold they are impotent to refute their opponent’s assessment. The strength of the evidential argument, then, boils down to one’s own subjective opinion as to what constitutes too much evil. If one thinks the amount of evil in the world is such that it is highly improbable that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting it, then they will be inclined to agree with conclusion of the argument. If one thinks the amount of evil in the world is such that it is probable God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting it, then they will be inclined to think the conclusion of the argument is false. Similarly, if one thinks the conclusion that God’s existence is highly improbable is true, then they will be inclined to think the premises of the argument are true. If one thinks the conclusion that God’s existence is highly improbable is not true, they will be inclined to think the premises of the argument are false (or at least premise 3). Without an objective basis to determine the truth of the premise 3 we are left with an argument that will only convince those who are already convinced of the conclusion (hence, the circularity). An argument whose tail wags the dog does not make for a very persuasive argument!
Unless Advocates can come up with an objective argument for premise 3, it is little more than a bald assertion based on their own subjective analysis. If we are to believe that God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting the amount of evil we observe in our world, we must be provided with some objective criteria by which to evaluate the precise threshold at which the amount of evil in the world makes God’s existence improbable or highly improbable.
Presupposing the Truth of the Logical Problem of Evil
Premise 1: The probability of God’s existence is commensurate to the amount of evil in the world.
Premise 2: The probability of God’s existence declines as the amount of evil increases
The matter of subjectivity is just one problem with the evidential argument from evil, however. The more fundamental problem is the assumptions being made in premises 1-2. Why think the probability of God’s existence is commensurate to the amount of evil in the world, such that greater amounts of evil render God’s existence less probable? Why think that a good God could exist if the amount of evil in the world is X, but if the amount of evil increases to X+1 then the existence of a good God is less likely, and if the amount increases to X+2 the existence of God is even more unlikely, and if the amount of evil increases to X+9 God’s existence becomes highly improbable? If there is no logical incompatibility between God and evil because God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil[4], then how do greater amounts of evil make God’s existence more improbable? If God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting X amount of evil, on what grounds should we think that He is less likely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting X+9 amount of evil as well? If the existence of God is logically compatible with the existence of evil qua evil, then the amount of actual evil in the world cannot make the co-existence of God and evil less probable. If there is no logical incompatibility between God’s existence and the existence of evil, then God’s existence is just as possible if the amount of evil in the world is X as it is if the amount of evil is X+9.
The only thing that could make God’s existence less probable given X+9 amount of evil is if we assume that it is highly improbable that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting great amounts of evil. Advocates assume that perhaps God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting X or X+2 amounts of evil, but not X+9. But as we already saw, they have no objective basis for considering any value of X to be the threshold beyond which God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil. And even if they could put forth an objective basis for determining what the proper threshold should be and how we can assess whether the evil in the world has met or surpassed that threshold, how could we ever apply that criterion objectively and with accuracy? Our epistemic finitude and temporal limitations prevent us from being able to accurately assess whether or not God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting X+9 amount of evil, and thus to conclude that it is highly improbable that He have such a reason is premature, presumptuous, and arbitrary.
At this point some may charge me of appealing to ignorance or mystery, but such is not the case at all. As William Lane Craig observed:
[W]e have no idea of the natural and moral evils that might be involved in order for God to arrange the circumstances and free agents in them requisite to some intended purpose, nor can we discern what reasons such a provident God might have in mind for permitting some evil to enter our lives. Certainly many evils seem pointless and unnecessary to us ‑ but we are simply not in a position to judge.
To say this is not to appeal to mystery, but rather to point to the inherent cognitive limitations that frustrate attempts to say that it is improbable that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting some particular evil. Ironically, in other contexts non-believers recognize these cognitive limitations. One of the most damaging objections to utilitarian ethical theory, for example, is that it is quite simply impossible for us to estimate which action that we might perform will ultimately lead to the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure in the world (see chapter 21). Because of our cognitive limitations, actions which appear disastrous in the short term may redound to the greatest good, while some short term boon may issue in untold misery.[5]
Given our inability to accurately assess whether God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the amount of evil we see in the actual world, I see no reason to think the amount of evil in the world makes God’s existence any more improbable than if there was less evil in the world. Granted, greater amounts of evil may make it more difficult for us to understand the reasons God could have for permitting such amounts of evil – reasons that would be morally sufficient to compensate for the suffering caused by it – but our bewilderment and emotional struggle is not indicative of a logical tension between high levels of evil in the world and the existence of God. It may be beyond our epistemic abilities to know and understand God’s purposes for permitting great amounts of evil, but that does not mean it is improbable that He has such purposes. When I was a child and was disciplined by my parents, I thought it was highly improbable that they had a morally sufficient reason for inflicting pain and suffering on me, but now that I am older and wiser, now I can see that they did have a morally sufficient reason for acting as they did. Similarly, perhaps if we could see the grand picture of things as God sees them, we would also see that there is a morally sufficient reason for permitting the evil we see in the world.
The fact that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil renders the relative quantity of evil utterly irrelevant to assessing the probability of God’s existence. I submit that the only reason to think a certain amount of evil in the world makes God’s existence improbable is if one already presumes that there is a logical incompatibility between the existence of God and the existence of evil, regardless of the amount of evil. So while philosophers put forth the evidential problem of evil as a distinct argument against God’s existence, its defenders must presuppose that the underlying principle of the logical version of the argument is true for the evidential version to make any sense. While they do not think the coexistence of God and evil is logically contradictory as the logical version of the argument claimed, they do think the coexistence of God and evil is logically incompatible. While God and evil are not mutually exclusive such that the existence of one excludes the possibility of the other’s existence, there is a tension between the two such that the greater the amount of evil in the world, the less likely it is that God could exist in the same world. The tension and incompatibility they envision could be likened to the relationship between humans and poison. While humans can coexist with small amounts of poison in their system, there comes a threshold beyond which humans and poison cannot coexist. Likewise, while God and evil can coexist in principle, their coexistence is only probable if there are low-levels of evil in the world. Once evil reaches a certain threshold, it is highly improbable that God and evil can still be thought to coexist.
The problem with this approach should be clear: You can’t admit on the one hand that there is no incompatibility between the coexistence of God and evil, but then turn around and argue that God’s existence is highly improbable because of all the evil in the world. Either God and evil can coexist or they cannot. If they can, then no matter how much evil there is in the world there is no reason to think God’s existence becomes less probable, because whatever the amount of actual evil in the world, God’s existence is always logically compatible with it, and God could always have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it.
Atheists might retort that I am failing to distinguish between possibility and probability; i.e. they are not claiming that God’s existence is impossible, but merely improbable, and thus they are not relying on the logical version of the argument to when making their case. This is true insofar that they are not arguing God’s existence is impossible given the amount of evil in our world. But I do not mean to say that the evidential version is parasitic on the conclusion of the logical version. Rather, it is parasitic on its presupposition that there is an inconsistency between the existence of God and the existence of evil. While they admit that the logical version of the argument is unsuccessful, they are only admitting that the conclusion is false: given the existence of evil, God cannot exist. But they do agree with the underlying assumption of the logical version of the argument, namely that there is an incompatibility between the existence of God and the existence of evil. It is in this sense that the evidential argument from evil is parasitic on the logical argument from evil. By denying the logical form of the argument they affirm that God and evil can coexist, but then they turn around and declare that that it is highly improbable that God and evil do coexist. Why? Because God and evil are incompatible with each other! But if God and evil are compatible, it becomes inexplicable why greater amounts of evil make the co-existence of God and evil improbable.
To conclude, since the evidential problem of evil is only a problem if there is a genuine logical problem of evil, and there is no logical problem of evil, there is no evidential problem of evil either.
[1]I am indebted to philosopher Glenn Peoples for this insight.
[2]As I’ll go on to argue, however, premises 1 and 2 are dubious. If there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God and the existence of evil, then there is no reason to think that God’s existence becomes less probable as the amount of evil increases.
[3]One reason they may have for denying that the amount of evil in the world is sufficient to conclude that God does not exist is because they recognize that the question of God’s existence cannot be decided by just one consideration—the amount of evil in the world—but must be considered in light of all of our background knowledge. There are positive reasons to believe that God exists, such as the origin and contingency of the universe, the fine-tuning of the initial constants required for a life-permitting universe, the origin of biological information, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and the existence of moral facts. When we weigh the evidence against God’s existence (evil in the world) against the evidence for God’s existence, on the whole it is still more reasonable to believe that God exists. And if the preponderance of evidence points to the existence of God, then we conclude that God must have a morally sufficient reason for permitting all of the actual evil in the world. We reason as follows:
(1) Taken in isolation, the amount of evil in the world renders God’s existence improbable.
(2) However, the origin and contingency of the universe, the fine-tuning of physics, the origin of biological information, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and the existence of moral facts renders God’s existence probable.
(3) God’s existence cannot be both probable and improbable.
(4) Since the reasons to think God’s existence is probable are more numerous and more persuasive than the reasons to think God’s existence is improbable, it is more reasonable to believe God’s existence is probable.
(5) If God’s existence is probable, then it cannot be true that God’s existence is improbable given the amount of evil in the world.
(6) For God’s existence to be probable given the amount of actual evil in the world, God must have a morally sufficient reason for permitting these evils.
(7) Therefore, it is probable that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting the amount of evil in the world.
[4]Detractors often construe this as an argument from ignorance. Appealing to morally sufficient reasons that God may have for permitting evil is clearly not an argument from ignorance. To argue from ignorance is to argue as follows: “I don’t know why X, therefore Y is true.” Clearly that is not the form of the argument. Indeed, the appeal to morally sufficient reasons is not even an argument. It is simply an undercutting defeater to the atheist’s argument that God cannot exist because the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. To undercut that claim, the theist only needs to show a possible way in which the two are logically compatible. And indeed, if God were to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then there is nothing logically incompatible with a good God permitting evil. Whether God truly has such reasons is irrelevant, as is the question of whether we can know what those reasons are. The mere possibility that God has such reasons is enough to show that the atheist’s “logically contradictory” or “logically inconsistent” argument is false.
I actually think we can discern God’s morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in a general sense (it produces moral goods that could not be produced otherwise, such as forgiveness, patience, sympathy, courage, and mercy). What I don’t think we can know is the morally sufficient reason(s) God has for permitting any one particular instance of evil, and for good reason: We can’t see the larger picture to know how some evil S might abound for the greater good. S could cause a chain of events leading to the greater good in someone’s life in the immediate or distant future. We are just not in an epistemic position to know, evaluate, or judge such things. But human epistemic limitations should be no reason to conclude that it is not possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. More will be said about this later.
[5]William Lane Craig, “The Problem of Evil”; available from http://www.bethinking.org/suffering/advanced/the-problem-of-evil.htm; Internet; accessed 10 February 2012.
Thinking to Believe 
February 20, 2012 at 7:26 am
Google Fr.Meslier’s the problem of Heaven to fathom why it keel hauls all defenses and theodicies. In brief, should there exist in Heaven free will and a guarantee not to do wrong, why not here? The free will and the soul-making arguments do aught to overcome this.
” Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy” David Ramsay Steele
” Arguments about Gods ” Graham Robert Oppy
” Atheism, Morality and Meaning Micahel Martin
“The Testament ” Fr. Meslier around 300 yrs, ago
LikeLike
February 20, 2012 at 7:46 am
No, the unknown reason defense a is an argument from ignorance,because it requires a reason that due to the overwhelming evil cannot be had. What could possibly be the greater good of the Holocaust as the making of Israel could have come about in a different manner that would not have the evil that came with it that continues to ensue! We don’t need all the evils to have a contrast betwixt good and evil, and with Burton Porter, I find that the contrast amongst good,better and best would be far better. So much for omniscience!
Our epistemic limitations suffice for us to know that no unknown reason exists! That would betray reason and – humanity!
With science, experience gives us the duty and right to note that it will answer the question of abiogenesis instead of the argument from ignorance. That argument and the one from presonal incredulity underline other arguments for Him. We skeptics have our incredulity from the conservation of knowledge, no, again, no argument from ignorance.
By analysis, not by a priori nor dogma, we atheists can flatly declare God cannot exist, not having to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves!
All supernatural arguments fail: no evidence for them can exist per Lamberth’s teleonomic/atelic argument. Google lamberth’s naturalistic arguments about God to fathom why He is no more than a square circle or married bachelor and we need Him no more as the pirmary cause -Aquinas or ultimate explanation- Leibniz! Despite Alister Earl McGrath, He is a useless redundancy!
Theology is the subject without a subject.
LikeLike
February 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm
This post pivots off the most profound and greatest of all questions: How is it that an all-good, all-powerful God would allow evil to exist? The atheists have proclaimed there cannot be an all-good God who is also Omnipotent and Omniscient. Griggs, above, states categorically “we atheists can flatly declare God cannot exist.” Griggs joins many truly great minds – Bertrand Russell, etc.
Griggs, I will say it again. There are a very few, only a very few, highly intelligent and highly educated Christians who believe there is an all-good God who is Omnipotent and Omniscient. Jason is one of them. I urge you to really listen to him. Please take note that while 99% of Christians are not very smart and do not have the ability to understand you, there are a few who actually understand what you are saying and those few still believe, still know, that you and Russell and Hawking and Dawkins are just wrong. There really is a Good God who is all powerful and all knowing. As Jason, as well as Alvin Plantinga and a few others, have demonstrated, that belief does not contain a logical contradiction.
Jason, your post above as well as other posts are theoretically unassailable. Your logic is intact. The Christian foundation does not contain a logical contradiction. However, I urge you to take the next step, and address the fundamental roadblock: What is the morally sufficient reason or reasons for God to allow such massive, horrible evil? The evil we witness is not confined to hangnails. Evil is pervasive and rampant throughout this world. Why? Why, with specificity, has God allowed this to happen? Your last paragraph hints that you intend to address this soon. I have ideas and will contribute.
LikeLike
February 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm
The problem of Heaven belies their finding our other two arguments wrong,because no reason thus exists for what sentient beings here experience .The logical contradiction is the inconsistency betwixt the defense that we would be robots had we that guarantee that we would never do wrong , and, by impication, to special plead that He wouldn’t be the Supreme Robot. This reflects no hobgoblin of little minds!
Morality dictates that sentient beings rank higher than the feelings of any supreme being.
Why would He need that relationship with us? No, not for us.
randi, yes, why when we’ve the epoitemic ability to see that evil exists that is way too much as Burton notest!
I fathom that some uphold limited God- Brigthman, Bertocci and Hartshorne.
I recommend this blog at mine.
One of my aims is to make sure that we don’t talk past each other.
As a fallibilist, a skeptic, yes, I might be wrong! I’m no Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff with a closed system.
Jason and Danzel do an excellent task here.
LikeLike
February 20, 2012 at 7:43 pm
epistemic
LikeLike
February 21, 2012 at 6:04 am
Well, I agree that the Problem of Evil is an obstacle for Christianity. We believe in Jesus, and Jesus is all good. It is a very high obstacle, but I believe, strongly, that is an obstacle that is surmountable. I believe one can understand the answer, and once one does, he will even more strongly realize the magnificence of our God.
However, the Problem of Evil is also a huge problem for atheists. If evolution really was the driving force claimed, would not those who like to fight wars have evolved away?
LikeLike
February 21, 2012 at 10:16 am
This is a very helpful post and my first impression is that you argued very well against the evidential argument as you presented it. My problem is that I have never seen anyone formulate the argument in such a way. Can you provide any links to people who do just to be sure we are not arguing against straw-men?
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 4:21 am
If the Incarnation was intended to provide the remedy to defeat evil, it has failed. But that does not mean there is no God but whether God is in any way active in the ‘world’ as we know it? If religion is an accurate manifestation of God’s will, and that will demonstrated in any new moral capacity of our species, [called righteousness] one would expect to see results of moral progress greater than what we know. That being the case, either religion is false or there is not God or both?
The foundations of institutional Christianity are theological. The attempt to explain a revelation that may exist with that part of the scriptural record called the Bible. So does theology only exist because nothing has been revealed? History may be about to provide that answer and it’s not going to be a comfortable one.
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.
Thus ‘faith’ is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.” So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk,
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm
We Christians should admit that the atheists have a strong prima facie argument. They are saying “Look around. There is massive suffering. How is it that you Christians claim there is an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful God?”
And that is a very good point. If the suffering in this world was a thousand times less, it would not be so good of a point. But, suffering is everywhere, even in the jungle, especially in the jungle, where no humans witness. And it hurts even the most innocent animal or child. Why?
The Biblical answer to the problem of suffering is Romans 8:18: “For I consider the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
In other words, the Bible is telling us that the horrible thousands of years of suffering (yes, I know Griggs, you will say hundreds of millions of years of suffering – same point) is not to be compared with what He has planned for us.
And I will say this again: We Christians are supposed to tell the world about the “GOOD NEWS”. Griggs, it is very, very good news. You too will one day know and worship the one true God. “EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.” (Romans 14:11) Every knee. Jesus came to this world to save every single sinner. That means me, Justin, Griggs and everybody else. “…we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” (1 Timothy 4:10)
God is the Savior of all men, not just believers. It is impossible to really accept or explain the suffering in this world unless we understand that the purpose is to say everybody.
LikeLike
February 22, 2012 at 10:59 pm
So what? They did.
Randy, that’s ranks with, I’ll give you a million dollars should you let me amputate your legs.Another rationalization! And that blasphemes morality and- humanity!
Salvation is so nonsensical a way for expiation! No rational being would ever have anyone to have to be saved anyway! I go to the supernaturalist jugular!
No real Adam and Eve, and despite Michael Ruse, the account does not accord with evolution, and ill-serves even as metaphor!
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 8:49 am
(1) The probability of God’s existence is commensurate to the amount of evil in the world.
(2) The probability of God’s existence declines as the amount of evil increases
(3) There is much more evil in the world than we would expect there to be if a good and all-powerful God existed
(4) Therefore, it is improbable that God exists.
If you remember my previous visits you know I’m an atheist. (I prefer the label “not insane” instead of atheist.)
I don’t use this “lots of evil in the world therefore there’s no god”. So what if there’s evil? That has nothing to do with whether or not there’s a supernatural creature hiding somewhere in the universe.
Also, I don’t say a god is improbable. Instead I say a god is ridiculously impossible. Too nutty an idea to take seriously. I say with 100% certainty there are no gods for the same reason I’m certain there’s no Easter Bunnies. Both fantasies are equally childish and equally impossible.
Religious people usually invoke a god to solve some scientific problem (beginning of the universe fourteen billion years ago, the development of the first simple living cells on our planet four billion years ago, etc.). When they invoke Mr. God to solve these problems what they’re really doing (and they will never admit it) is they are invoking magic. They are saying this problem can only be solved with a god’s magic wand.
They are wrong to do this because if some problem is not solved yet it will probably be solved in the future, if not by anyone living today, then future generations will solve it, or they will at least have some reasonable ideas that don’t require magic. If a billion years from now there are still unanswered questions, then it still would be wrong to invoke magic. Just because a problem hasn’t been solved doesn’t mean there’s no solution. It’s wrong to invoke magic for the simple reason that magic (or what religious people call God with a capital G) is impossible, unless you want to pretend something as ridiculous as Harry Potter’s powers could be real.
Even without the 21st century’s scientific progress there’s no reason to pretend there’s a god. God = magic = nonsense. Nothing could be more simple to understand.
What’s even more crazy is all the other weird stuff that has been invented, for example the resurrection of the dead Jeebus, but that’s another subject.
I got to provide you with my four favorite quotes about this subject.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
— Charles Darwin
If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that what conquers our ignorance is research, not giving up and attributing our ignorance to the miraculous work of a creator.
— Jerry Coyne
Science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson
If you look at the universe and study the universe, what you find is that there is no evidence that we need anything other than the laws of physics and the other laws of science to explain everything we see. There’s absolutely no evidence that we need any supernatural hand of god.
— Lawrence Krauss
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm
These scientists’ words ring true. Science finds nothng more than the law of conservation to sustain the quantum fields,whence derive this present Universe, making the argument from contingency no more relevant than arguments for phlogiston. Supernaturalist aver that Aquinas’s arguments don’t rely on Aristotle’s outdated physics, but the arguments have no force at all anyway!
Our common conservation of knowledge finds then no God. To add Him as the Ultimate Expllanation violates the fact that natural laws and causes and explanations themselves are that explanation, and addingHim contradicts them such that theistic evolution and theistic science reflect Lamberth’s reduced animism that whether the many of full animism or polytheism, theism has the one spirit but nevertheless superstitius as would to adduce gremlins and demons as ultimate explanations. No, supernaturalists would err in claiming why those are parts of Nature and we argue for a power behind Nature itself, because no category fault lies here as both types are the same in that no reason exists for agency in either case as science indeed illustrates. Even, our NCES errs in this as it is a scientific fact behind our philosophical telenomic argument that science finds no divine intent.
Still to find Him would make for the new Omphalos argument per the late John HIck ‘s epistemic argument that He makes evidence for Himself ambigouous to keep from overriding our free wills to freely accept a realatonsihip with Him. No, no intent means no method of makng for that ambiguity whatsoever, and thus no evidence can arise for Him1
Again, had scientists found that intent, then behind all experiments that very intent would always make them turn out the same as that happens with backwards causation, putting the past before the future and the event before the cause, negating time as Paul B,Weisz finds in ” The Science of Biology,’ when I derived this argument with the name teleonomic from Ernst Mayr is some article on the internet and the other name atelic someone suggested to me.
Then I derived the argument from pareidolia when I learned about pareidolias. Seeing the pareidolais of intent and design when reality shows no intent and patterns just as people see the Marian apparitions or Yeshua on a tortilla.
Now I make Lamberth’s genetic argument that supernaturalists themselves with their arguments from angst- Augustine not resting unless in the bosom of Yahweh and from happiness -purpose indicate that they as well as naturalists note their reasoning to arrive at HIs existence comes from their desires and such as Feuerbach, Hume and others note, and from our finding no evidence for HIm.No evidence exists for either of their two arguments,but their desire to persuade others to brainwash themselves into believing in Him!. Putative findings of such evidence is wrong-headed.
Catholic evoutionist Francisco Jose Ayla prattles that we need Him to overcome dread-angst- and to find our purpose. No, we seek therapy for the former and we, as Jean-Paul Sartre, notes we are responable for our own projects/purposes. In ” Intelligent Design and Darwin,” he prattles that most of us need Him for values and purpose. No, we ourselves find our own values and purposes.
Sarte and Ayala both would prattle that atheism finds the world absurd. No, we naturalists/rationalists find it otherwise as we find ” The Comprehensible Universe,” where natural laws inhere in this Universe and any other.This belies Gottfried Wilhellm Leibniz’s colossal blunder why is there something rather than nothing derived from the argument from personal incredulity and answering with the argument from ignorance.
Without special pleading and begging the question,despite William Sahakian’s prattle that we commit the fallacy of multiple or many questions with our what caused Him or designed Him questions [ he just makes that about one of them],because he himself begs the question and special pleads to aver that!
In summation, we bear the respnsability to make our own purposes and values and to find the Cosmos comprehensible without introducing agency.
Whilst Aristotle the Stagyrite helped get naturalism started, he erred with finding intent- that final cause whilst Thales from Miletus before him and his student Strato after him are correct in finding no intent/agency in science.Europe should have heeded them and Carneades who against Chrysisspus notes that to posit agency begs the question as when the latter uses the terms builder and buidling as analogous to the Creator and the created. Thence I derived Carneades’s argument that all teleological arguments beg the question of divine intent/agency which as Lamberth’s reduced animism argument notes as superstition at work.
The Flew-Lamberth argument the presumption of naturalism requires supernaturalists to give evidence for Him instead of religigious experience, including revelations, to overcome our finding natural cause and explanations themselves the Primary Cause, the Necessary Being and Ultimate Explanation as they are that Sufficient Reason [ Here Leibniz makes his little blunder]. Despite, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, their argument from personal explanation reflects superstition per the reduced animism argument.
I ever combine and permute arguments, but as John Loftus emailed me so do supernaturalists that also with certain matters.
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Sorry for those typos, but i couldn’t get spell check to work.
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Forgive me for being blunt, but all the academic quibbling in the world doesn’t solve anything. People spend more time talking about the problem of evil than actually doing anything about it. The fact is people are in the middle of evil events, often times beyond their control, that are going to strip, wound, scar, damage, or possibly even kill them.
Why is there evil in the world? Because people are evil. Beat around the bush, blame God for not being omnipotent or loving enough to do anything about it, (and therefore conclude He doesn’t exist) or chalk it up to evolution’s death drive and survival of the fittest, it still doesn’t matter. If we really want to assign a reason for the problem of evil in the world, how about we all just shut up and look in the mirror and point our finger in that direction?
And if anyone is arguing that their personal version of what God should or should not be doing about evil in the world doesn’t measure up, just remember, if you want an omnipotent, benevolent Creator to eradicate all evil in the world, then He’s going to start with you and me. And guess what, that day is coming. But if God should be patient, and willing to suspend His wrath against our evil so that more people have a chance to turn from their wicked ways so that even the worst miscreant repents for being an evil you-know-what, then let’s all just be quiet and trust that He knows what He’s doing.
Yeah, iniquity is waxing worse. Jesus said it was going to do so some 1,980 years ago. But with all our developments and progress and achievements in whatever field you name, the end result is still the same: millions are starving to death, disease is rampant, the rich walk on the backs of the poor, warlords are crushing civilian populations, abortion goes unchecked, some little girl somewhere in the world is being raped, some lonely man has a shotgun to his head, lines of coke are being snorted, prisons are jammed beyond capacity, a husband is on the internet betraying his marriage covenant, some woman is on her knees in an alley or in the back of a semi-truck somewhere to earn herself a fix, an old man with only one lung is still addicted to nicotene, and the average human being is going to tell a lie and hurt someone today, tomorrow, and the day after that. No one is exempt. So all you “sane” atheists out there who demand God level the place in a fit of extreme rage (or else He doesn’t exist, right?) just remember, the day of the Lord is dark and not light, and the winepress of His wrath is going to be more than you can ever hope to possibly handle. Scoff all you want. Pat yourself on the back because your logic is superior to that of mine, a fool for Christ. It’s okay. I will pray for you, and you will not pray for me. And after I die, if I was right and you were wrong, to your shame and everlasting regret it will be. And if I was wrong and you were right, oh well, no skin off my nose. We’ll both just go into the dirt and that will be the end of it. But don’t say you were never warned. Don’t say someone didn’t try to get in your way long enough to stop you from rushing headlong into an eternal grave.
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Ah, Aaron, the ad baculum arguments won’t cut it with rationalists as it is the argument from force or in your case, might makes right and the divine protection racket. Thus, you’re just ranting instead of trying to maintain theism with rational argument. You won’t provide any kind of evidence for your opinion other than the begged question of biblical trustworthiness. Why,people of other faiths would find you quite pompous and arrogant,invoking divine wrath on others for not believing as you do will just promotes intellectual ostracism!
Thus, your warning is no more effective than Pat Robertson’s stupid warnings. Tsunamis and other natural calamities happen naturally, not because of divine wrath! How animistic and superstitious! Yes, yours lies in the future state,but no one can give evidence of that anyway!
And, of course Alvin Plantinga’s finding demons might be responsible for natural disasters as he probably would to explain our errors in finding why we err when God has determined that our faculties are truth-seeking is just animism. Indeed, theism per Lamberth’s reduced animism argument, means one spirit guides all Nature instead of the many of full animism or polytheism behind parts of Nature, but just as misguided in being superstitious. No evidence exists for divine input into Nature per Lamberth’s teleonomic/atelic argument.
In summation, God has no input and thus cannot be Himself and thus cannot exist!
Lamberth’s the Malebranche Reductio, notes that Nicholas Malebranche maintains that God is not only the Primary Cause but the secondary ones , in effect, when he states that God does the actual striking when we strike the eight ball, and thus, reduces to absurdity unwittingly the idea of His being the Primary Cause!
That is, no need exists to posit God as involved in any natural phenomena at all!
Nobody has told you that most people most of the time do good instead of evil.Why be a misanthrope when reality says otherwise?
You note evils but cannot fathom that evil logically disproves omni-God and again, God cannot be Himself and thus cannot exist! Oh, then limited God has His problems that His supporters cannot overcome and thus He also cannot be Himself and thus cannot exist! Altogether, God whether omni-max or limited cannot exist.
Evil is both the evidential and logical defeater of all defenses and theodicies per Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven, that colossal hobgoblin of theism!
I already here have asked why can’t theists be consistent in finding that free will and a guarantee not to do wrong on Earth as in Heaven? Why, He could have us have analogical virtues as the late rationalizer John Hick makes as part of the free will and soul-building combined argument, another it must be or it may be of theological guesswork!
Ah, give us rationalists and others some kind of evidence for Heaven, Hell, the future stat,the soul and free will as Bible-thumping just begs questions!
With my previous remark above and this one, I give much to ponder and to which to reply other than with that ad baculum and such. Deal with each point instead!
I am just updating the original Carneades and Hume.
Why not take John Loftus’s outsiders’ test[OTF] by looking at your religion for the first time as you’d look at other religions to see how it would hold up applying the same standards. No, it won’t do to tell us that why, it has Yeshua and his salvation as that would argue in a circle!
I’m not responsible for evil. My wrongdoing is minor and proportionately needs no grave expiation.
LikeLike
February 23, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Carneades, I think you are missing the point (though I think you proved it, nonetheless). I am not attempting any force. I agree my words may come across as passionate. Fine, that’s okay, if they are perceived that way. I admit to passion for the subject. But look at your own recent post in response to mine. Aside from a few salient points, it’s not much more than a cross reference to a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo that the average sufferer from the evil in the world doesn’t give two craps about. I know the reason for this blog and so I know such references are appropriate here. That’s not the point. The point is none of this amounts to more than just academic ramblings that have no weight in the real world. The theoretical is completely detached from the practical. These things provide no solution. It’s a lot of high-minded finger wagging to assign blame upon the perceived higher principles. Well, guess what? Evil hangs low and lives in the mud and scum of real life. Pontificating about its nature and cause doesn’t get a homeless person some shelter or stop an alcoholic from obliverating him or herself. And that’s the main (or at least first) point of my post.
So, this is not misanthropic. I am not now nor ever have, nor ever will, advocate a position that indicates there is no good in this world, or that good somehow can never flow out of a relatively decent person. But within that relatively decent person lies the same bend toward destructive cruety and evil, no matter how repressed or resisted. After all, a four year old girl who dreams of being a fairy princess never once thinks she’ll grow up to be a dysfunctional, drug-addicted, miserable person who can’t handle life and so takes her pain out on others. And why not? Because she hasn’t yet suffered the evils that humanity heaps upon itself. Should her dad abandon her, should an uncle molest her, should any number of terrible evils befall her, and that dream dies and the reality of her future, which she now lives, sets in, then she will become that dark and depressed, hurt and hurtful person. It happens all the time. Maybe not in the ivory towers of academia. But in the slums and suburbs of your average nation, it does. So, for every humanitarian and genuine altruist, (or for all who have overcome the adversity of evil in their own lives for that matter – a worthy and beautiful thing) there are 10,000 maniacs to take their place, from all walks, including science and religion. So, it’s not wrong or inaccurate to admit that the whole of humanity, when taken collectively, has, indeed must, share in, if not completely take, the moral responsibility for the evil that exists in the world.
You can’t have it both ways. If my God does not exist, then He cannot be held morally accountable for the “problem of evil”. So guess who hangs guilty as charged? But most atheists, rationalists, evolutionists, secular-humanists, or whatever label they choose for themselves, are not prepared to claim such a verdict because it indicts them, as well, and so they invent charges against a Creator they don’t even believe in and lay our collective guilt at His feet, choosing to act or live as though He doesn’t exist so they can tidily clean up after themselves, i.e. assuage their human conscience by hating and blaming God for their guilt, then wipe Him from the mind and deprogram themselves as a just and fitting punishment for not stopping the evils we ourselves cause. If that isn’t a circle, I don’t know what is. And I know, because I went around that merry-go-round for years before I came to.
As far as your subjective view of self, that you are not responsible for evil, then please define evil and then justify that your “wrong doing” is minor. How do you know, friend, whether or not the recipient(s), (i.e. victims) of your wrong doing will say the same? Your minor wrong doing may have meant life or death to someone else. An island you and I are not.
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 7:52 am
Aaron, tu quoque- the you do the same fallacy] enters rightly here as your approach to overcoming evil rings true, it cannot overcome the fact that no defence and theodicy in light of this problem of Heaven kills them all.
We do no not have that square circle.Instead, we point our why He is that square circle and ranks with gremlins and demons as the Primary Cause- that ultimate cause behind evil as Isaiah 45: 9 brags [ No, don’t rationalize the clear meaning!].
It’s for the sake of argument to hold Him responsible.
No, no Donne island, for as covenant morality for humanity notes, we’re intertwined. No one,even Pol Pot would deserve eternal Hell, no matter were it not so hellish. Wrongdoing is against humanity and the moral code, not missing the mark -sin- against God. People wrongly hold the ground that against omni-God, we deserve Hell.
To desire Him as the enforcer means to see humanity as just minor children when again we are free beings,owing no ones allegiance,but allegiance to the covenant to live in harmony with all humanity as our evolved moral sense requires.We’ve refined it : we no longer permit slavery and we now are going to permit same sex marriage across this Union!
We all see torturing babies as evil and repugnant morally. You use reduced animism to find God as the ground and enforcer of morality that forbids evil actions whilst we find that morality grounds itself with no enforcer in what’s good or bad for us sentient beings.
People can bray at reality for that enforcer, but no one has to remind herself to be moral or else. Instead, one internalizes morality by using that sense that one should ever refine. Indeed, with Paul Kurtz, I call for the planetary ethic.
Humanist morality rests on the proposition that I as a rational,consistent human being will be nice to others as I want them to be nice to me- the Platinum Rule.
Those who choose to do wrong, do wrong just the same-even in the name of God. You have no defeater for humanist morality. Indeed, we don’t live off yours but rather you follow ours when you follow reason and facts!
Again, however strong you word your message reveals no reason for us others to consider your faith at all. We find expiation in a rational manner. Morality dictates no Hell but instead rational expiation. I note the speck in my eyes, so I dare not judge harshly the speck in others’ eyes. That is to judge proportionally in a rational manner: judge and be judged!
In summation, what morality dictates matters instead of that atrocious morality that those perverse, peevish pessimistic misanthropes of yore who for the most part created in the name of their gods commandments!
Reason saves! Not Spockian false reason but our warm reason. Reason goes hand in hand with the emotions.
No circle then exists but just in your mind!
We have organizations to do that good work. I try to be a cheer leader for others and to help when possible.
I have no reason to escape morality as it works for my better. No, we cannot escape the mere wishes of your putative God! We prefer a rational morality to help sentient beings!
Such misconstrual of naturalists and other atheists means lazy thinking at work!
Other naturalists/rationalists/humanists here can now answer you,too.
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 8:00 am
And no pontificating exists but why no divine intent exists behind that evil and that that intent betray morality as a consistent free will and a guarantee not to do wrong would ensure no evils to crush people! Your words don’t assauge those who undergo evil but truly instead increases it whilst mine encourage others not to follow your reasoning but to thrown themselves into doing that good you suggest without the illusion of Sky Pappy helping and that non-existent future state.
I serve that just task master morality itself directly! I need no inbetwixt entity to intervene for me! And that is far from being that island or selfish!
Thus, the probem remains as that obstacle for supernaturalists again!
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 9:50 am
I haven’t read all the long posts above, so forgive me if I say something already mentioned or if I am redundant to this conversation.
I will not comment on whether the existence of Evil proves that God exists, only to a say that you can spend a lot of time debating the topic and creating all sorts of rationalizations that in the end may not be so useful.
My comment here is I believe the existence of Evil is necessary for God to be fully glorified for who He is. Evil (or sin) goes against the very nature of God and is the really the only foe to Him. This evil is personified by Satan and the demons and also by the wicked deeds of men. It is God’s ability and wisdom to overcome this evil that really in the end will glorify Him for He is the only One that can overcome this foe and prove to humanity once and for all that He is Almighty and powerful !!
As I read the scriptures, I see more and more that the whole point of everything is for God to receive the glory. While some think that God’s purpose is make our lives prosperous and joyful, I think that is only a side-benefit to the real purpose of God – which is to Glorify Himself !! And why not ? He is the Creator and Sustainer of all living things. In Him we live and move and have our being.
Evil exists so that God will be glorified on this earth. In the end Evil will be defeated either by the salvation through Jesus Christ or by the Judgement of Jesus Christ. You pick……….
Naz
LikeLike
February 24, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Before I even read the new posts (and/or any direct replies to me):
I would like to share my apologies. After some reflection throughout the day, I’ve come to realize that my words may appear or feel antagonistic and impertinent – which, if so, only amounts to little more than a tirade. While I still strongly feel the sentiments I shared, my tone was inappropriate, especially on someone else’s (a brother in the Lord, no less) blog. It wasn’t my place to share such reactions, especially since such was not the suggested purpose of the post to begin with.
So to Jason, to Carneades, and to any other who’ve read or will read what I’ve so far written, please forgive me if I’ve offended or caused hurt. I’m sorry.
Aaron
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 12:05 am
Aaron thanks.
Naz, you are blaspheming morality and -humanity! Your God is thus narcissistic and vain-glorious and of such low self-esteem, that instead of doing right by us,uses might is right to harm us for his glory! Such was the hateful attitude of of Mother Dearest Teresa who wanted to glorify Him so much that her order never would do right for the patients but have them writhering in pain for His glory! That bespeaks evil.
Why wait until Judgment Day as He, per the problem of Heaven, should already have us in Heaven!
Such and and the very notion of Hell add to the problem of evil instead of validating His love for us!
Why not Heaven in the first place? It’s not what He desires, but what is good for sentient beings that counts morally!
I hope that my recommending this blog in mine will attract more readers here!
http://carneades-georgia.hubpages.com
LikeLike
February 26, 2012 at 10:31 am
Griggs,
You ask “Why not heaven in the first place?” That is a very fair question. It is the root of the problem of evil. Let me give you an answer, at least a possible answer, one that fits into my personal understanding. Let me provide a brief thought experiment:
Let’s imagine that God has created hundreds of billions of people. Each person has absolute free will. In this thought experiment, each person is created with such perfection that he is able to recognize and choose or reject evil at every point in his existence. By absolute free will, I mean each person could, if he chose, do something evil – perhaps steal other people’s money. God has a talk with all the people He created, and He explains the consequences of evil, and everybody, except one person, understands evil and consciously chooses to eschew all evil. That one person, however, Griggs (you) would choose to be evil on occasion, and God knows that Griggs would choose evil. (Do not, of course, take this personally. You are the object of this thought experiment only so you might be able to feel the point I am making.)
God might then create everybody, except Griggs, with absolute free will. He places them directly into heaven, as you say “heaven first.” God, though, would have a three-way choice to make with Griggs. First, God could choose to not create Griggs. However, even before God creates Griggs, He loves him very much. It is absolutely unacceptable to God to choose to not create Griggs. Second, He could create Griggs, somehow, in such a way that Griggs could never do anything evil. That, in effect, would make Griggs less than absolutely free, and less than the other billions of persons. Or, as a third choice, God could develop a plan whereby Griggs would temporarily live in a separated place. In this place, earth, he and a few others would live in an environment whereby the consequences of Grigg’s evil could be experienced. Griggs would feel the pain he causes himself and the pain he causes others. At some point, Griggs would experience enough evil that he would choose to absolutely eschew all evil. Griggs would then have total free will and be perfectly good.
It is important to understand two points that Christianity makes about the presence of evil. 1. It is of limited duration – it will one day cease. 2. It is of much less magnitude than the good that will follow.
For me, at least, the above answers the problem of evil on a very limited scale. There can, logically, be an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God who allows evil into a separated place called earth.
Randy
LikeLike
February 27, 2012 at 8:10 am
Mr. Griggs, or should I call you “lord”, I don’t know.
You said. “Naz, you are blaspheming morality and -humanity!”
Maybe I am, but I would rather to that than blaspheme the LORD.
Naz
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 6:37 am
The greatest problem with defending God’s goodness by claiming that we aren’t in a position to judge? Yes, that would prevent us from concluding that God is evil but We also cannot judge Him good. Even if God does something that clearly appears good to us, we simply aren’t in a position to judge. God’s motives and actions could be completely and horrificly evil at all times – we simply lack the capacity to know. Thus, by trashing humanity’s moral capacity, you trash any credible reason to think God is anything but pure evil.
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Arthur, you are making a good point. Many Christians do look at the Problem of Evil and when they are unable to provide a good answer they simply jump to another floor by saying “we cannot judge God”. That is a very poor explanation, and it implies that we can’t believe our own senses and instincts.
I do not defend God’s goodness by claiming humans are not in a position to judge Him. While it is true we cannot “judge” God, usually, we can tell the difference between right and wrong. When we see evil in this world, most recognize evil for exactly what it is – evil.
God is not the author of the evil in this world. He has allowed it, for reasons we see dimly. As Jason puts it, God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to temporarily exist. The concept is much like the “tough love” principal – sometimes we parents will allow a child to go his own way because we believe that when he returns, he will be the better for his experience.
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Randy, the judging = the He has an unknown reason, that argument from ignorance.
That we can tell when evil happens means we don’t need Him as its grounding!
Moral realism tells us that morality is real.
No, Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven quells that tough love policy! Why not as, John Hick himself guesses and rationalizes would be virtuous analogues, in Heaven be here on Earth in the first place to be consistent!
Were it not for evil, we wouldn’t be here as Roy Jackson in ” The God of Philosophy” notes! Evil caused our ancestors to come to America. Contingency can be so mean, yet make for the good. Yet, why not better means! How was the Holocaust that tough love as people could have used better means to established Israel without the pernicious wars attendant to it! Why not more good from good?
For contrast, why not good, better and best/ No such amount of evil is required anyway to contrast with good as BurtonPorter notes.
Please don’t rationalize Isaiah 45:9?
And permitting liberty for Satan and hardening hearts and hiding messages behind parables so others cannot fathom them just adds to the evil!
Thanks.
I’m recommending this blog for sure!
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Randi, yet had He made me with free will and a guarantee not to do wrong, that scenario woudn’t work out.
I’m a determinist. Thus, I use other terms for volition. My will has more latitude due to medicine than years ago,but still has no contra-causal [ causeless] freedom.
Discussion beats wars!
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Arthur,
I disagree. We can know God is good. And unlike attempts to show that God does not exist because of (the amount of) evil in the world, we can know this through non-empirical ways. See https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/
And I am not trashing humanity’s moral capacity. I am simply pointing out our epistemic limitations to determine what is morally justifiable in the broad scheme of things and what is not.
Jason
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Wow, too deep for me. I think most of this is over analayzed, and too close to being about the Bible and not necessarily God for me. I don’t think God has anything to do with good or evil, I believe that comes from man and earth. Without man, there is no good or evil, whether there be a God or not. I believe that without evil, there would be no way to recognize good. With the yin-yang approach, everything has an opposite. We cannot know good without the existance of evil. But this is not about what God created or let happen. God may have created the universe, but I sincerely doubt he put life on just one planet for him to toil about and mess with us for eternity. God may watch over this earth, but for free will to truly exist, (which I don’t believe in free will or lack thereof) God would have to fully leave us alone and let the good and evil take place on it’s own. I’m not a believer in God meddling in everyone’s business, I believe God allows us to make our own decisions, maybe with a little spiritual nudging now and then, but still leaves it all up to us humans. Evil exists because good exists, it cannot be any other way. Without evil, there is no good, we would know no different. With the balance of power set up the way it is, every action needs an opposite reaction, it is the law of nature. We are bound by the laws that God gave the universe, and good and evil are also bound by those laws. So how much good or how much evil is in the world, cannot be measured in anyway, to prove or disprove God’s existance, in my opinion of course.
LikeLike
December 30, 2018 at 5:29 pm
[…] Tied at the Hip: The Logical and Evidential Versions of the Problem of Evil […]
LikeLike