“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Mister Agenda]

In this article, I have used some classical topics in philosophy for the development of my conclusion. In my efforts to escape exhaustive details, I have only used basic definitions to keep this article short.

a. “The Problem of Evil” in the venue of atheism

“The Problem of EVIL” is the question that most atheists jubilantly expose to disprove the existence of God. In fact, some of them claim, it is the strongest argument that help keeping their disbelief in the existence of God. They somewhat feel proud in exposing “The Problem of EVIL” because apparently this argument has the power to utterly devastate the logic of some poorly educated people who are emotionally inclined to God whereas it can create a profound misperception in many impassive believers. In many low level debates, atheists sometime get unprecedented victory over their theist counterparts with the help of this argument.

So why is this? Why “The Problem of EVIL” has a potential to place human cognition in a bewildering state? Let us analyse this problem in the environment of atheism.

Although there are few versions of “The Problem of EVIL,” I have chosen the argument, which Dr Bruce Russell of Wayne University has developed. There is no certain criteria behind this choice because all versions give similar conclusions “there is no God.” The premises of this argument go like this:

I'm not going to tackle this whole mess. 'A' by itself has enough problems. The 'problem of evil' is only a problem for the God of theodicy. That version of God is supposed to be an infinitely powerful, knowledgable, benevolent creator of us, the earth, the universe, and everything. However, the world we observe is at odds with the claim that such a being is in charge of it. Thus, the problem of evil. If your version of God is diminished in any of those qualities, the problem disappears. If not, more than ad hoc hand-waving is required to resolve the problem. And the conclusion of the argument is NOT 'there is no God', it's 'there is no God of theodicy'.

---

Doesn't appear to -be- a point. Just an outlet for recitation. OP, how effective do you imagine any of this will be when your audience seems perfectly content to call the quran out for the ridiculous bullshit that it is, honestly?

What makes you so sure that whatever written in Quran is a nonsense? What proofs do you have to disprove anything in Quran? Perhaps Science, Philosophy, Literature, Mathematics, or what else you have to support your blind dismissal. Why are you so certain that all atheists see things in exactly similar manner as you do? What makes you feel you are above everyone else?

What made you think that was an honest and accurate representation of his post?

---

Correct! Chaos in the Muslim world is the objective of the Secular world.

Secular world? The 'secular world' is largely run by Christians. What an odd but convenient to your worldview term to use.

---

Yeah, botflies and malaria are an evil western imperialist plot.

Have you ever given a thought why malaria is not a problem in the secular west but it is a problem in Africa?

Malaria was never as big a problem in the Christian West as it was in Africa. In most other parts of the world, mosquitoes that carry malaria prefer lifestock, but because humans have lived in Africa for so long, there is a species of malaria-carrying mosquito that prefers humans to cows. It's been there so long that many humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to malaria at the cost of those who have the genes from both mother and father suffering from a form of anemia (which limits how widespread the resistant gene can become).

More recently, the Western powers (mistakenly, in my opinion) outlawed DDT, even for human protection, but only after malaria was virtually eradicated in Europe, North America, and Asia. This decision cost millions of Africans their lives, usually by the age of five. However, the malaria problem in Africa is so entrenched that even with DDT it may not have been possible to eliminate it in Africa, and if it failed, the surviving mosquitoes would be DDT-resistant. The wise compromise would be to not use it for agriculture, but continue to allow its use to protect homes.