چکیده:
The 'evidential problem of evil' inductively and a posteriori claims that there is no rational basis for believing in the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God given the excessive, groundless, and abundant evils we see around us. William Rowe argues that if there are evils that do not exist for the purpose of achieving a greater good or preventing an equal or greater evil, then the existence of these evils will be considered evidence and testimony for the non-existence of God. In this discourse, Rowe's ideas are first presented, and then the approach of some Western theologians in criticizing his view will be stated. To provide a final answer using Quranic verses and traditions, we will use three perspectives: 'abandoning the demand for God to act,' 'critique of worldliness,' and 'the life of animals.' In this critique, we employ the methodology of the Ahl al-Bayt school against philosophical and theological doubts, which is a novel and unique approach that must be understood through principles derived from the Quran and traditions.
خلاصه ماشینی:
A critical report on William Rowe's view regarding the evidential problem of evil 1* Amirmahdi Bakhshizadeh The "evidential problem of evil" claims, in an inductive and abductive manner, that there is no rational basis for believing in the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God given the excessive, gratuitous, and widespread evils we observe around us.
The core of his discussion in the evidential problem of evil is / that there is no reasonable justification for the existence of specific evils that are gratuitous and unjustified alongside belief in God. The gratuitous and unjustified nature of evil means "evils that an omniscient, omnipotent, and purely good being could prevent without losing a greater good or permitting an equal or worse evil.
Of course, Peterson states in the book "God and Evil" that the evidential problem of evil based on abundance and plurality is an attempt to clearly express one of the deepest and most profound human objections in defense of atheism; but finally, he states that if a higher good can be found that justifies the existing evils, then theism will have the ability to escape this predicament.
Mohammad Saeidimehr, in his weighty and precise article titled "Divine Wisdom and the Evidential Problem of Evil," which is among the first of its kind, has organized the critique of Rowe based on the views of Stephen Wykstra, 1.
(
, 
, 
)
