Once again, the theist can simply point out that human knowledge -- either our own, or in the collective sense -- is not only incomplete but not even necessarily close to complete. Furthermore, inference from incomplete evidence is dangerous; before Columbus, European philosophers would have felt themselves on firm "rational ground" to suppose that no edible starchy tuber existed, and yet the potato would have proved them wrong.

Attempts to prove the nonexistence of God through arguments from evil often founder on either the definition of "God" or the definition of "evil." However, while an imperfectly benevolent or even amoral God does not pose a logical problem for those who prefer to consider the divine as unmoved mover, first cause, or as some other morally neutral cosmological principle, such a God is obviously not the benign deity of modern religious orthodoxy. And while a "mystic" or other theodicial investigator may...
[ View Full Essay]