Philosophy Problem Of Evil Questions Long
The evidential argument from human suffering is a philosophical argument that attempts to address the problem of evil by focusing on the existence of unnecessary and excessive human suffering in the world. It argues that the presence of such suffering provides evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.
The argument can be summarized in the following logical form:
1. If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God exists, then unnecessary and excessive human suffering would not exist.
2. Unnecessary and excessive human suffering does exist.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God does not exist.
The first premise asserts that if God possesses the attributes of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then it logically follows that such a God would not allow unnecessary and excessive human suffering to occur. This is based on the assumption that an all-powerful God would have the ability to prevent such suffering, an all-knowing God would be aware of it, and an all-good God would have the desire to alleviate it.
The second premise presents the empirical observation that unnecessary and excessive human suffering does exist in the world. This includes various forms of physical and emotional pain, disease, natural disasters, poverty, war, and other instances of human misery that seem to serve no greater purpose or moral justification.
From these two premises, the conclusion is drawn that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God does not exist. The argument suggests that the existence of unnecessary and excessive human suffering is incompatible with the existence of such a God, as it would imply either a lack of power, knowledge, or goodness on the part of God.
Proponents of the evidential argument from human suffering often emphasize the scale and intensity of human suffering throughout history and across different cultures. They argue that the sheer magnitude and extent of this suffering cannot be easily dismissed or explained away by appealing to free will, moral growth, or a greater plan, as these explanations do not account for the unnecessary and excessive nature of much of the suffering.
Critics of the argument may offer various counterarguments, such as the idea that human suffering serves a greater purpose or that it is a necessary consequence of free will. They may also question the ability of humans to fully comprehend the intentions or plans of a divine being, suggesting that what may appear as unnecessary suffering to us may have a greater purpose that we are unaware of.
In conclusion, the evidential argument from human suffering presents a challenge to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God by highlighting the presence of unnecessary and excessive human suffering. It raises important philosophical questions about the nature of God, the problem of evil, and the compatibility of suffering with the concept of a benevolent deity.