The problem of evil has been a controversial for a long time. Various people have come up with their own stories regarding the problem of evil, and bringing different arguments regarding this issue to lime light. The people, who have a concern about the problem of evil issue, are theology people and philosophers. Different theologists have brought different arguments the same way philosophers have. The problem of evil has been the greatest rational obstacle to belief in God. This paper explores the evidential version to the problem of evil and its greatest objection.
The evidential problem of evil was started by William Rowe. The evidential problem of evil, also referred to as probabilistic version to the problem of evil, is a problem of ascertaining if the presence of evil forms evidence to the premise that God does not exist. It argues that God who is immensely powerful and mighty and perfect in his goodness cannot allow suffering or any evil to occur or happen to human beings. This version argues that there is a fact that is known about evil, and it forms an evidence to show that God does not exist at all. One of its premises argues that the role of biological pain and pleasure is attributed to nature and not to theistic influences.
The argument in this version to the problem of evil elucidates aspects and distinctions that have to do with evil. These arguments are based from a philosophical point of view. Some other proponents of probabilistic version to the problem of evil argue that God exist, and that he allows some form of evil to happen or take place. This is so long as the evil allows a person to obtain a greater achievement from the evil deed. They argue that God allows evil to happen only to ensure that a person benefits immensely. To them there is no other reason as to why evil happens or occurs.
The proponents of the evidential version to the problem of evil state that if people once decide to assume that no evidence that supports the existence of God is present, and it becomes clear that the existence of a powerful, ever present and righteous being that created the world would seem not to exist.
Evil has been divided into various types. Natural evil has been said to be evil that originate from natural occurrences and cannot be blamed on man because man cannot do anything to stop them from happening. Examples of natural evil are natural calamities, death, disability and certain diseases. Sometimes natural evil is caused by mistakes that human beings do. For example, the inception of drought may be caused by man's practice of cutting trees down and refusing to plant more trees (Petrik, 2000).
Moral evil comes about because human beings wrongly use their free will. An individual who engages in a moral evil does that deliberately knowing that it is not the right thing to do. Examples of moral evil are lying, killing fellow human beings and greediness among others. Horrendous evil comes in the sense that people ask themselves whether the life of an individual is given for beneficiary reasons to the whole person. It may either take the form of a moral or a natural evil for instance rape, child molestation and betrayal.
Evidential argument to the problem of evil is against the belief in theism and all that attaches to theism. It views theism as something that is not realistic. Evidential version to the problem of evil has to ways of explaining its arguments. First, there is, a direct inductive, way in which evil is against the idea of theism and does not draw a comparison to other forms of hypotheses. Secondly, indirect inductive way identifies other unconventional hypotheses that talk about facts and the truth about the evil that is against belief in one and the only God. Evidential argument is supported by those people who do not believe so much in the existence of God.
To the proponents of the evidential version to the problem of evil undermines the existence of almighty being. To them, if God would be present in the world then he could be able to prevent the evil from happening especially when the evil does not provide any good to an individual. If God was present in the world, then evil would not exist because the powerful and almighty could not allow it to happen. Thus, if evil happens in a high magnitude that makes people suffer very much and even lose their lives, God is inexistent. This is proved by the fact that God loves his people and cannot allow people to suffer under his own eyes.
However, this was not the case. People suffer, and others lose their lives due to the existence of evil. To them God would have saved people from this kind of harm, evil and suffering. God is said to be a merciful leader, who cannot let his children suffer under evil on his own eyes. The reality that comes from evil evidence is proof enough that God's existence is not real. This version of the problem to evil is just a probability that has not been proven to be true. The evidential or probabilistic argument on the problem of evil has sparked many responses especially from pro theists who believe that god is existent; he is the one who created the world and allows evil to happen for particular reasons.
One key objection to the evidential description to the problem of evil originated from theists. They have come out clearly saying that evidential account to the problem of evil is incorrect. This is when it states that the existence of evil is a confirmation enough that God does not exist. To theists, the fact that God is all powerful an almighty capable of doing everything he may want to do, does not necessarily mean that he must not allow evil from happening. The argument here is that god allows certain evil to happen for certain reasons. For instance, God may allow evil to happen as a form of punishment for people who wrong him or fail to follow his teachings.
This objection argues that if evidential version to the problem of evil is probabilistic, then it means that the proponents of that version are even not sure of what they postulate. The practicability of their argument has no concrete base as evidence that can be used to qualify their arguments as factual.
Theists argue that the powerful God gave people freedom of choice to enable them do whatever they like. The only restriction to this liberty is that all those people who do not adhere to his teachings are bound to suffering at the end. To theists, it shows that divinity is extant in humanity and evil can ensue or occur while he is watching. For instance when a person decides to steal, it does not mean that God is not there at that time, but the autonomy that he has granted to individuals and the costs of their actions allow that person to involve himself in evil (Moser and Copan, 2003).
Besides proving that evil can happen under God's watch, theists argue that this is the only way to remain faithful to one and powerful almighty God. The objection that is brought forward by the theist is that those who purport that evil happen because God in nonexistent forget one decisive factor. They argue that the proponents to the evidential problem of evil base their argument on one side of a dual argument. Theist argue that evidential proponents chose to overlook the fact that besides God being powerful and almighty in every sense, there is another powerful force existent in the world that glorifies in the evil problem.
The powerful force that the evidential proponents overlooked is Satan. Theists argue that Satan, having disobeyed God in heaven, was thrown down to the earth with all the powers that he had while in heaven. In heaven, Satan wanted to outdo God and the universe and all that pertains to it. Theists argue that with all the powers that he came with from heaven, Satan still works to destroy the harmony that God had set. This is why the evil problem exists. So when evidential proponents argue that occurrence of evil qualifies non existence of God, they lie (Wielenberg, 2008).
Evidential version, to explaining the evil problem, was essentially started and developed by philosophers who do not believe in God. Thus, they try to explain that there is no God in the world. However, their argument is weak because it is theoretical and has nothing to prove their claims. Theists, in defense to God's existence, try to object the premise brought forward by evidential proponents in various ways and prove that God is existent and can allow evil to happen if it is for the greater good. The theist argument was to ensure that those who believe in God's existence continue with their faithfulness towards their belief.