Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's Argument Analysis

This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger.

The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil takes into account three defining features of God: all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful and questions whether such a God would permit evil and not interfere. Sinnott-Armstrong discusses his stance by countering responses he coins as the Glorious Response, the Modest Response, and the Overriding Response. Whereas, Craig counters the arguments made by Sinnott-Armstrong.

The Glorious Response

Thus response suggests evil is

124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125). He also refers to the cosmological argument to show that God is an all-powerful being who created the universe out of nothing. Furthermore, he claims that suffering in the world is moral in the sense that suffering inflicted on innocents is genuinely evil. Without a God, there would be no objective morals, thus, evil proves God’s existence, as things would not be considered good or evil without a God (Craig, p. 126). In conclusion, evil proves God’s existence and thus the question as to why God permits evil does not work to disprove His existence. Craig ends on the note that we cannot possibly surmise that God’s overall plan does not work to contribute to the salvation of the greatest number of people (p.

As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed. In addition, Ockham’s razor also puts the burden on the theist because an atheist accepts the world as it is whereas a theist brings in the idea of a God on top of the natural world. In short, Craig’s stance required more work and he fell