Evidential argument from evil is not strong

[Jonathan G.]

Rowe and Draper's formulations are predicated on the idea that all things being equal, then theism is implausible or less plausible than naturalism given the reality of evil.

But the theist will adamantly deny that all things are equal. Given all the arguments for God's existence, we could still grant a very very high probability of God existing given evil. The arguments including:

1. The kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The argument from contingency
3. The moral argument
4. The argument from fine-tuning
5. The argument from objective meaning
6. The ontological argument
7. The argument from personal experience
8. The argument from desire
9. The argument from consciousness
10. The argument from reason

In addition, it does nothing to say that theism is implausible because naturalism could be implausible and yet also more implausible!

[Amoranemix]

I am not familiar with the 'all things being equal' clause.
The Problem of Evil is a very good argument against the existence of an MGB and thus a good argument against Christianity. In order to evaluate the likelyhood of the Christian worldview compared to alternatives one should indeed also consider arguments in favour of Christianity.
However, just listing the titles of arguments does nothing to support Christianity. I am not familiar with all the arguments you named, but they seem to be either unsound or not arguing for an MGB or the Christian god.

In addition, it does nothing to say that theism is implausible because naturalism could be implausible and yet also more implausible!

Refuting an alternative to naturalism makes it more plausible.

[rjonesx]

While I am pretty comfortable with the PoE, I think that it is worth pointing out that all of the arguments listed in the original post make theism plausible but they do not prove existence of God. The number of the arguments does not necessarily reflect their cumulative value either. It is not as simple as saying I have 8 arguments you have 1, I win. There are plenty of arguments against theism and, in particular, Christian theism.

I don't want you to take this as a reason to doubt your faith, rather as a reason to study the PoE and see if your faith and reason reconciles it. You needn't be afraid.

[aleph naught]

1. The kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The argument from contingency
3. The moral argument
4. The argument from fine-tuning
5. The argument from objective meaning
6. The ontological argument
7. The argument from personal experience
8. The argument from desire
9. The argument from consciousness
10. The argument from reason

Notice that of all the arguments you posted, the few that make claims to the creators moral standing are also the weakest. Imo the moral is the worst argument ever, and the ontological (at least Plantinga's) becomes an even better argument for atheism with a bit of tinkering.

Edit: also, if you study the problem of evil, you'll find that the typical responses actually undermine arguments for God like the fine tuning argument, or argument from experience.

[Nightvid Cole]

Rowe and Draper's formulations are predicated on the idea that all things being equal, then theism is implausible or less plausible than naturalism given the reality of evil.

But the theist will adamantly deny that all things are equal. Given all the arguments for God's existence, we could still grant a very very high probability of God existing given evil. The arguments including:

1. The kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The argument from contingency
3. The moral argument
4. The argument from fine-tuning
5. The argument from objective meaning
6. The ontological argument
7. The argument from personal experience
8. The argument from desire
9. The argument from consciousness
10. The argument from reason

In addition, it does nothing to say that theism is implausible because naturalism could be implausible and yet also more implausible!

Well if that is so, you are talking about those *other* arguments, not the evidential argument from evil.

Jumping to different arguments is not a refutation of this argument, sorry!

[redtilt1]

Many of the arguments you name even if valid would not show the god was omnipotent or omni benevlent.
Our unvierse could be created by a very , not all powerful god, or even a good, but not all good god. The argument from evil tries to establish that a perfectly good and all powerful and all knoweldgable god does not exist. Even if the kalam and fine utning argument were valid they would not affect the argument from evil.

[jermncoco]

Considering whether sometimes suffering accomplishes something that no one can foresee because of our limited vantage point, our lack of knowledge of all the seeming inconsequential circumstances leading up to a major event or the inability to see the resulting outcomes far in the future, Darwin's theory of Evolution, "the law" etched upon the minds of many modern people, owes it's very existence to the intense suffering Charles Darwin experienced in losing 2 babies, then his father and then his beloved 11 year old daughter Anne. Does evolution not exist because its foundation is built upon suffering?

I would definitely agree the arguments against the existance of God from the evidential position from evil is weak.

[jayceeii]

Darwin's theory of Evolution, "the law" etched upon the minds of many modern people, owes it's very existence to the intense suffering Charles Darwin experienced in losing 2 babies, then his father and then his beloved 11 year old daughter Anne.

Surely this is illogical, to claim the theory of evolution bears the marks of Darwin’s suffering. Evolution is either true or it isn’t, with no connection to the emotional state of its discoverer! Nonetheless there’s a striking parallel here with a deep and serious flaw in Christianity, which has been to emphasize the suffering of the Lord as if it must be a cure. Either there is salvation or there isn’t. What does Jesus’ emotional state have to do with it? Christianity tries to ride the momentum of poignancy. They have a point. As the most profound entity, surely when Jesus suffers it would immediately break anyone else. Nonetheless suffering is not a power, or power’s proof. The Christian theory of salvation hangs on an interpretation of the Father as Autocrat, coldly demanding sacrifices before He will be appeased. Yet God may be even colder against actual sinners, deceiving them. Sacrifices might not appease God. Why isn’t anyone asking whether God is appeasable? All through history in every religion it’s been presumed men could please God this way, but no one has been struggling to form an idea of God as something other than a cosmic accountant, counting evil and good deeds and making sums before passing Judgment. It means Christians may be accused of idolatry, with an image of God that is just an object.