The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Gemini]

A simple form of the logical argument from evil would go:

1. If gratuitous suffering exists ...

That's the EPoE (evidential problem of evil).  The LPoE goes:

1. If any suffering exists ...

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"In section 1.4, a much more concrete version of an incompatibility argument was set out, which, rather than appealing to the mere existence of some evil or other, appealed to specific types of evil—in particular, situations where animals die agonizing deaths in forest fires, or where children undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. The thrust of the argument was then that, first of all, an omniscient and omnipotent person could have prevented the existence of such evils without thereby either allowing equal or greater evils, or preventing equal or greater goods, and, secondly, that any omniscient and morally perfect person will prevent the existence of such evils if that can be done without either allowing equal or greater evils, or preventing equal or greater goods..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#...cForEviFor

The essential difference between logical and evidential arguments from evil isn't the caveat that only gratuitous suffering is incompatible with a tri-omni God, it's that evidential arguments use inductive formulations, or will take the form of a deductive argument with at least one premise qualified by a "probably" caveat, such as Rowe's "gratuitous evil probably exists."