Philosophy of Religion - The Problem of Evil

Reasons often cited:
- Parental influence: "My parents told me."
- Biblical claims: "The Bible says there's a God."
Critique of these reasons: These reasons are unlikely to persuade non-believers.
Other reasons for belief:
- Morality: The existence of right and wrong implies a divine origin.
- Cosmological argument: God is necessary to explain the origin of the world.

Reasons often cited:
- Parental influence: "My parents told me there's no God."
- Scientific claims: Science has disproven the existence of God.
Critique of these reasons: The reasons aren't very convincing.
The problem of evil: The existence of suffering in the world is incompatible with an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. This is considered the strongest argument for atheism.

The argument in premise form:
1. If God exists, then He is:
  - Omniscient (all-knowing)
  - Omnipotent (all-powerful)
  - Omnibenevolent (all-loving/all-good)
2. If God is omniscient, then He knows how to prevent evil.
3. If God is omnipotent, then He is able to prevent evil.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then He wants to prevent evil.
5. If God knew how to, could, and wanted to prevent evil, then there would be no evil in the world.
6. There is evil in the world.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
Explanation of premises:
- Premise 1: Assumes the standard attributes of God.
- Premise 2: An all-knowing being would know how to prevent evil.
- Premise 3: An all-powerful being would be able to prevent evil.
- Premise 4: An all-loving being would want to prevent evil.
- Premise 5: Combines the previous premises to suggest that an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God would eliminate evil.
- Premise 6: Acknowledges the existence of evil in the world.
Conclusion: The premises logically lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.
Challenge: Which premise is the weakest and can be rejected?

The free will defense attempts to address the problem of evil by arguing that free will justifies the existence of evil.
Paradox of Omnipotence: Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?
Plantiga's Point: God can do anything that is logically possible, but He cannot do things that are contradictory. God can't sin or lie, for example.
Applying this to free will: It is logically contradictory to say that someone has free will but cannot do something wrong.
Therefore, God can't grant free will and guarantee that evil won't occur.
Revisiting the Logical Problem of Evil:
- Premise three (If God is omnipotent, he could prevent evil) is rejected.
- Even though God is omnipotent, given the fact that he gives us free will, he can't always prevent evil.
- Evil is always possible because we have free will.
Atheist Response: Most atheists agree that the free will defense provides a way out of the logical problem of evil

Acknowledges that some evil is the result of human freedom.
However, natural evil exists (disease, death, natural disasters) and cannot be explained by human freedom.
The question becomes why there is this much suffering in the world, specifically natural suffering.
The evidential problem of evil is a weaker but more difficult argument to refute.
Argument in premise form:
1. God wouldn't allow this much suffering in the world, specifically natural suffering, unless He had a good reason for it.
2. There's probably not a good enough reason someone could have for allowing this much suffering in the world.
3. Therefore, God probably doesn't exist.
Relevance: It is I think the strongest argument for atheism. Most atheist philosophy professors appeal to it, but not the logical problem.

Addresses the Evidential Problem of Evil.
Analogy: Rabbit in the Garden.
- The Story: A garden owner hires rabbit removal services to check for rabbits eating vegetables. Three companies offer different levels of service.
  - Service 1: Only checks one corner of the garden.
  - Service 2: Offers to scan the entire garden with top-of-the-line equipment.
  - Service 3: Scans 90% of the garden due to time constraints.
- The Question: If service 3 scans 90% of the garden and finds no rabbit, should the owner believe there's probably no rabbit?
Analogies to Atheists:
- Atheist 1: Only considers a few possible reasons God might have and concludes they are not good.
- Atheist 2: Attempts to consider every possible reason God could have but is limited by the infinite possibilities.
- Atheist 3: Considers the majority of possible reasons but cannot account for the infinite complexity of the mind of God.
The Tarp Analogy: The 10% of the garden not scanned is covered by a tarp, representing the infinite complexity of the mind of God.
Skeptical Theism: We have a good reason to deny two because God's reasons for suffering could be hidden in the complexity of God's mind, as rabbits may be hiding under the tarp.
Skeptical theists acknowledge God's existence but are skeptical about knowing the reasons for suffering. It is the belief that God exists. It is just that they are skeptical when it comes to the reason for suffering and don't claim to know the reason.

The logical problem of evil is a failure.
The evidential problem of evil is more difficult, but skeptical theism offers a response.
Final questions to consider:
- Does the evil in the world disprove the existence of God?
- Are there any positive arguments for the existence of God?