Instances of evil can be seen everyday across the world. From large-scale events such as genocides and epidemics to smaller incidents such as robberies and car crashes, nothing but pain and suffering results from these evils. The undeniable fact that these types of events occur in the world clashes with the common belief that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being exists. Philosopher William Rowe’s argument from evil for atheism seeks to prove that pain and suffering cannot exist in the same world as an omniperfect being. It says:
There exists instances of intense suffering which and omniperfect being could have prevented without losing some greater good or permitting an equally bad or worse evil.
An omniperfect being would prevent any occurrences of intense suffering, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Therefore, an omniperfect being does not exist
Though a highly debatable topic, each premise has a backbone of supportive facts behind it, making it difficult to properly argue for the existence of both evil and a perfect being. Whether the argument be that God’s definition of what is good and evil is different from humanity’s, people simply cannot understand God’s plans for allowing evil…show more content… Since an omniperfect being cannot be wrong, that means that humanity’s ideas on morality can be false at times. What a person may view as an evil instance, such as a child being hit by a car, God may not. Though God could have prevented such an event from happening, it actually shows he is omnibenevolent to not stop it. While to humanity this looks like an instance of intense suffering, theists can say that it is not because, under God’s rules of morality, this instance is not