1. What is the Logical Argument From Evil? How is the Free-Will Defense relevant to the Logical Argument From Evil? How plausible is the Logical Argument From Evil?

2. What is Rowe's [evidential] Inductive Argument From Evil? How cogent is this argument?

3. What is the Abductive Argument From Evil? Does this form of the argument from evil have advantages over other forms of the argument from evil?

4. What are some specific examples of theodicies? How successful are those examples in accounting for the variety and quantity of evils in the world?

     The "problem of evil" is probably the strongest of all proposals against the existence of God, but of course in philosophy almost nothing is ever fully accepted or refuted. There can always be a counter-argument made, either to further one's own beliefs, or just for the sake of argument itself. (If we had all the answers, we wouldn't bother about it, would we?) If there is a God, He (She? It?) hasn't tried very hard to convince us. What would be the reason for all the secrecy?

[1] Premise #1: Either God exists or suffering exists, but not both.

     Premise #2: Suffering exists.

     Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

     It's not very well phrased, in my view. Sometimes reducing something to a syllogism takes all the fire out of it. We ought to be a little more emotional about this seeming paradox. If there is actually a God, then I damn well want to know why babies die of cancer (or why there's cancer, period)... why we have to grow old and feeble and feel our bodies wear out, watch our looks (and hair, and teeth) disappear... why we have to die! And a million other things that are really and hopelessly unjustifiable here on the planet...  Omnibenevolent? Even a child can understand that God, if existent, does NOT have this attribute. So if that's a prerequisite; if that's part of the job-description...

    Having free will, and lacking any concrete proof of the creator, how can we possibly deserve pain and suffering? And if there's no free will, then God already knows what we're going to do wrong, but doesn't stop us. Either way it's a rigged game. Punish us for not believing, but yet hide from us to make believing difficult- what's the motivation there?

     I don't think a real, bona fide God could behave this way. Pain, suffering... injustice and cruelty, disease and death- they make infinitely more sense in a random universe. Because they make no sense at all. We wouldn't have wished these ills upon ourselves, and we're far from being as noble and good as a God is supposed to be. So what gives?

     The Logical Argument from Evil is highly plausible, and I feel strongly about it. (I have for decades). This is a discussion, after all... and I don't think the professor deducts points for having an opinion.

[2]  William Rowe's inductive Argument from Evil is merely a refinement of the basic argument; making a distinction between "morally unjustified or pointless suffering" and, I guess, whatever kind of suffering... is somehow justified and has a point (?!!)

     Apparently, to get around the ridiculous theodicy that all humans suffer because Adam and Eve ate some forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden- Rowe has come up with a fawn that suffers in a forest fire as his hypothetical victim of pointless evil. What has "Bambi" ever done to deserve this agony? No God would allow that, so God cannot exist.

     It's cogent enough, but no stronger than the original argument, and I'd therefore say it's weaker because it tries to reconcile a defense so stupid (inherited guilt) that it doesn't even merit the effort. And the only rebuttal we see in the text is the "Wykstra/Howard-Snyder" notion that God is so much smarter than us that He has a reason, beyond our comprehension, for fawns to suffer, and for newlyweds to die in car accidents on their honeymoons, and other such uplifting events.

[3]  The abductive argument- this is just a fancy way of saying "argument from common sense"... we don't have to diagram fancy equations and premises, have Good_1, Evil_13, or theoretical fawns in a forest, and all that... simply, what is the best, most reasonable explanation for the evil and suffering in the world? An answer that doesn't require your having a degree in logic, or having Gods jump through hoops, create infinitely heavy stones, etc. to understand. (There's your advantage over the other forms). And the simplest explanation for evil and suffering? There is no God. It takes volumes of arguments to reconcile God and evil- and nothing at all to take the atheistic stance. We can fight and struggle our way upstream, against the current... or just relax and let the river of life take us where it will.

[4]  Theodicies attempt to justify God allowing evil and suffering. (A more common term would be "excuses") Among them (and their dismissals):

• Pain and suffering is punishment for sin. (But infants and animals do not sin, yet suffer).
• Good needs evil as a counterpart. (With this line of thinking, the world needs to be destroyed tomorrow so we all can enjoy the counterpart of life known as nonexistence).
• Because of various natural laws that God has enforced, (such as gravity, or sufficient heat+oxygen=fire), and the fact that organisms have accidents- we fall out of trees, and burn ourselves; then it follows that some pain and suffering are necessary. (If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why not design creatures smart and/or strong enough to not get hurt?)

     These, and others, all seek to explain the compatibility of God and evil. But in doing so, they imply a God that is considerably less than perfect (as in "not-so-intelligent design" or "not-so-godly temperament").