Do you think that the atheistic problem of evil argument is a philosophical failure?

Question

Peter van Inwagen maintains that the problem of evil argument fails as a philosophical argument. It does not disprove the existence of God.

Answer 1

It does not necessarily have to disprove the existence of God to be a philosophic success.

Many atheists simply think God is not very good at his job (wholly 'proven' by the Problem of Evil argument). Many others believe that God is dead, not necessarily that he does not exist or never existed (ergo, the Problem of Evil).

I suppose it is more of a question of whether or not atheism is a philosophical failure.

Many atheists overlook that their existence as the antithesis of God forces him to exist as their antithesis. They would have nothing to not believe in if God did not exist.

Just a thought.

Answer 2

I do not think that the existence of evil disproves a God.

For one, Christian dogma has a scriptural explanation already - involving human free-will

Secondly, that argument has to assume that God is the Christian God and that he is incapable of evil.

Third, even if you conclusively disproved every religion on the planet, you cannot disprove the concept of theistic creation.

On a side note, any atheist who uses that argument must first concede the existence of evil.  Which defeats their own argument.

====

For those making comments about Burden of Proof... read this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

====

Atheism is NOT the DISbelief in God.  It is the lack of belief whatsoever.  You cannot assert Gods nonexistence in any rational manner and appear educated and unbiased and unbigoted.  All evidence to Gods non-existence is itself non-existent.  ANTI-theism is the complete bigoted rejection of the mere prospect of God - without adequate proof to that end.  A true atheist admits that they dont know one way or another.

====

I would also like to point out that one of you thus far has used the fallacy where you have asserted that the lack of evidence to Gods existence equates to proof of his non-existence.

That is absurd, especially since you would argue against the converse... that the lack of evidence to his non-existence equates to proof to his existence.

====

I think a lot of atheists confuse the arbitrary rejection of theory and possibility as being reasonable and logical. That denial of possibility equates to empiricism and skepticism.

I firmly believe being a skeptic means you admit that the possibility exists and that evidence is lacking.  Being a skeptic demands an open mind.

Anything short of that is a faith-based opinion.  Theists admit to having faith. Atheists assert that science and logic conclusively back their claims when it doesnt.  To be atheist is one thing... to declare that science backs your faith is bigoted and merely a rationale for blind anti-theism.

Answer 3

The Theodicy Problem as it's more appropriately referred to as, neither can nor does prove or disprove the existence of anything. However, It also doesn't have a valid and substantiated solution, by definition alone-despite the failures of all the attempts at solution.

The only possible valid conclusions one can draw from this are:

1. God does not exist.

2. God exists but is not Omnibenevolent (which you've left out of your formulation). This is a very important detail, because God can be "good" in this equation but not Omnibevolent which is "all-good."

3. God exists but is not Omipotent-(God wants to destroy evil but is limited, so cannot).

4. Dualism rather than Monism, (i.e. there is another equivalent cosmic power besides God which is not good. In the Abrahamic faiths this is Satan).

5. What we think of in the dichotomy of "good" and "evil" are mere illusions of the limitations of human scope in contemplating the transcendent. As Heraclitus said, "For God all things are good... for man some things are right and some wrong." This argument can be given with or without the presumption of deity, as a "naturalist" might indicate that neither the laws of nature, nor life in the state of nature, fit into any ethical binary oppositions.

I'm sticking with the latter answer.

Answer 4

The onus of proof surely falls upon those who believe. Since even the most brilliant minds (Anselm, Aquinas, Godel) have tried to do this and failed, the probability that God does not exist is high.

Answer 5

I'm at the top of the class, and I must admit your question has be boggled.

You speak of a "problem of evil" argument, and call it a failure. Yet you fail to disclose what that argument is.

Does this argument say evil exists? that it does NOT exist? that it can or cannot be overcome? that all it has to do to succeed is get past all the good people? What exactly does this argument fail at?

You link it only to atheism. Why? Theologians argue about the nature of evil. Their arguments do not attempt to prove or disprove, in most cases, the existence of God.

So what is the point you are making and how can we respond to it? I read the other answers, and they all presume to know what you mean.

Is the failure epistemological? ethical? moral? metaphysical? ontological?

Please, when you ask a serious question that DESERVES a serious answer, make yourself understood.

Thank you

Answer 6

I don't see how - it doesn't prove the existence of God either. Now the question God exists or not is completely different question.

I don't see what 'evil' has to do with religion/God, and what correlation this argument has with conceding the concept of evil.

Again you can not prove the existence of God either. The proof of burden lies with the person 'claiming' - "God exists".

Atheism: "disbelief in the existence of God or deities"

(Encarta Dictionary)

Answer 7

I have no idea what you're talking about

Answer 8

I have recently come across an interesting observation by Sri Ramana Maharshi: when asked the question "What is maya?" he responded by saying (I paraphrase) "Maya is that which makes the existence of the Lord not provable."

So what he has essentially done is suggest that the existence of the Lord cannot be known and agreed upon empirically the way other phenomenon in material nature is proven.

To me, I wonder: science has made compelling explanations for many facets of reality I wouldn't have thought touchable.  The thought that science will one day prove or disprove the existence of God doesn't seem impossible to me.

Nevertheless, Sri Ramana could be (and probably is) right, for the following reason: in the material creation the Lord cannot be named or described.  In my own experience I concur that the Lord accepts no definitions of any kind.  Any attempt to name the Lord is bound to fail, for descriptions do not penetrate what the Lord is.  The Lord is entirely untouched by material nature.  

Thus, proving the existence of the Lord empirically is also bound to fail.  The good news is that the existence of the Lord can be proven subjectively through personal experience.  If you are of the devotional mindset, you can know the Lord by devotion, and if you are of a philosophical mindset, you can know the Lord through inner searching.  

These methods will allow you to draw your own conclusions about the existence of the Lord God, although in the end your conclusion will remain non-verified.