This article discusses an argument against theism that focuses on the prevalence of suffering in the world, known as the argument from evil. The author critiques the naturalist perspective, suggesting it lacks strong support, and highlights the strength of anti-reductionist views. The central thesis is that the overwhelming presence of pain and hardship challenges the notion of an all-powerful, benevolent creator, thereby influencing many to reconsider their religious faith. This argument does not deny God's existence outright but questions the nature and benevolence of such a being.
The argument from evil asserts that the existence of suffering and woe in the world is inconsistent with the notion of a benevolent creator.
The debate centers less on the existence of a creator and more on the nature of that creator, given the prevalence of suffering.
While the case for naturalism falters, the anti-reductionist argument strengthens theism without necessarily proving God's existence.
Religious skepticism often relies on empirical evidence, particularly the argument from evil, posing significant challenges to traditional notions of a benevolent God.
Collection
[
|
...
]