The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

Thanks Pro. I look forward to our discussion.IntroductionMy opponent is correct to point out that there are two different kinds of arguments from evil. One is the logical argument from evil, which states that it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. The other is the evidential or probabilistic argument from evil, which states that it logically possible for God and evil to coexist, but nevertheless highly unlikely. Since the title of our debate is "The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God" I will have to use the logical argument from evil, since that arugment is the one that tries to disprove God via evil, while the evidential one doesn't try to disprove God, but merely just argues that his existence is unlikey. With that said, let me begin.Atheist Argument From Evil There have been many logical arguments from evil put forth by philosophers, but for this debate I will be using John Mackie's formulation. DefinitionsOmnipotent: able to do all that is logically possibleOmniscient: all-knowingOmnibenevolent or morally perfect: all-loving or perfectly goodLogically possible: a proposition that can be asserted without implying a logical contradictionPremise 1) If a being is perfectly good, he prevents evil as much as he is able. Premise 2) If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, he can bring about anything which is possible.Conclusion 1) Therefore, if a perfectly good, omnipotent, and omniscient being exists, he prevents evil completely.Premise 3) If God exists, then he is perfectly good, omnipotent, and omniscient.Premise 4) Therefore, if God exists, then he prevents evil completely. Premise 5) There is evil.Conclusion 2) God does not exist. Defense of Premise 1 This premise seems pretty obvious. If somebody is perfectly good, they would have the strongest desire to stop all evil. However, if somebody didn’t have the desire to bring an end to all evil, they would not be perfectly good. Defense of Premise 2 This premise is true given the definition of omnipotence and omniscience. An omnipotent being won’t be able to do contradictory things like create a square circle or a married bachelor, but he could do things that are possible like create the sky purple. An omniscient being would be unlimited in knowledge and therefore know how to bring about anything which is possible.The first conclusion follows since both premise 1 and 2 are true. Defense of Premise 3 No defense is really needed here. This is the definition of the God whose existence we are debating over.Defense of Premise 4 This is true given the definition of God. Since God is omnipotent, he would be able to destroy all evil. Since God is omniscient, he would know exactly how to create a world with no evil. Since God is omnibenevolent or morally perfect, he would have the strongest desire to stop all evil.Defense of Premise 5 This is blatantly obviously. Our world not only has evil, but contains an immense amount of it. Some examples of evil include genocide, rape, slavery, child abuse, animal cruelty, torture, racism, sexism, totalitarianism, poverty, world hunger, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. The conclusion God does not exist follows from the premises.ConclusionIn this paper I have successfully argued that the logical argument from evil does in fact disprove the existence of God, and because of that, the resolution is negated.Source: The Miracle of Theism by John Mackie: Chapter 9.