Studied by 0 people
evidential challenge, based on intense human and animal suffering that occurs on a daily basis.
What does Rowe argue?
if this evil and suffering resulted in ‘some greater good’ that could only be achieved by its presence then the suffering could be justified.
But he can’t accept God allowing gratuitous/intense suffering with no point, that is avoidable.
What is the argument in premises?
An omnipotent and omniscient being would know when intense suffering was about to take place.
such a being could prevent the suffering from happening.
an all loving being would probably prevent all evil and suffering that had no purpose, was pointless and avoidable.
but this evil and suffering does happen.
therefore, God probably does not exist.
What is the fawn example?
a forest fire, where a fawn is trapped and horribly burned, in terrible agony for several days before death takes away its intense suffering.
No greater good, the fawn could have died quickly rather than intensely suffering.
What is the case of sue?
5 year old girl severely beaten, raped then strangled to death on new years day 1986.
She did not need to endure intense suffering before being murdered if her death was necessary to bring a ‘greater good’
she could have died without the excessive/gratuitous suffering, was there even a greater good in this scenario?
