to what extent does the probabilistic problem of evil support atheism ?
the stricly logical problem of evil is largely discredited today, although i would be happy to see an original defense of it
>>1403330
to restate the argument:
>The world is filled with so many seemingly pointless or unnecessary evils that it seems doubtful that God could have any sort of morally sufficient reason for permitting them.
"pointless" ex. an african child getting malaria and dying before age 3, "unnecessary" ex. a pious person dying gruesomely in an accident, cutting short their perceived ability to spread piety
>Accordingly, it might be argued that given the evil in the world, it is improbable, even if not impossible, that God exists.
this itself isn't very supportive of atheism at all, and can be roundly debunked by long-extant christian theology, among others with simple rephrasing
>god is good
>evil/suffering is the lack of god
>therefore, anyone who is insufficiently godly is sufficiently suffering
>this is established through holy scriptures
>cosmically speaking africans dying of malaria is insignificant in comparison to the infinite reward godly behavior furnishes for the faithful
>the suffering of the pious is no different, and both of these scenarios are pieces of the (rightly) inscrutable divine will
yes, good work, HOWEVER,
appeals to such a moral system - "evil is straying from god's will (1), which you are free to do (2), because god gave you free will (3), because god wanted to give you free will (4), because 4 (5)", and the justification that it is indeed the proper moral system to stray from - "this is divine will because the divine told me it was the divine will" - are ultimately tautological without an irrational leap of faith - ex. I was visited directly by a spirit who confirmed this beyond reasonable doubt - and necessarily give more credence to the loose and relativistic morality of "evil" as simply deviation from the fallible morality of man, from which the cosmic significance is stolen, and deflated entirely, rather than deviation from the infallible and objective morality of the divine.
>>1403404
The issue for theists, not only Christians but judging from the OP they may be specifically included, is that their very definitions of what is "evil" and what is "good" are tautological, and rely on the mentioned leap of faith into an objective moral guideline to be credible. Why, for instance, does a Christian theist subscribe to Christian morality and not Hindu morality? They must, I claim, interject with an argument for the divinity of Christ, from which the validity of their scriptures, their moral system, and their argument descend, but given that these are tautological - Christ is divine because Christ is divine - they cannot hold more weight than the differing Hindu, who produces also their argument in a tautology, from on their own equally valid perceptions of divinity, and so on.
>>1403330
Behold!
Bait!
Our daily dose of that dude's face (OP's pic) .
Conversely, to what extent does the probabilistic problem of Christianity support evil.
Religious folk kill a lot of people.
(Behold! More Bait!
Right Click
Hide Thread
>>1403553
why should this be bait ? the problem of evil is a controversial topic the the philosophy of religion a topic that belongs to this board
and the guy in the pic is a philosopher of religion
