It could be argued that the evidential problem of evil does create more problems for belief in the existence of God than the logical problem of evil. This is because it does seem to entail more evidence and propositions than the LPOE. For example, it is seen as an extension of LPOE which entails all of its propositions as well as God’s omniscience, and the observance of the quantity, quality and pointlessness of evil in the world. On top of challenging God’s omnipotence and benevolence it challenges God’s omniscience. So at face value it does create more problems for belief in the existence of God since it is a more complex theory.
Another reason the evidential problem of evil creates more problems for belief in the existence of God is because the LPOE is purely logical. What this means then is that it can more easily be solved using logic and reasons why God may allow evil. But, this is not possible for the EPOE because it is based on what we observe in the world and so is real, so theodicies would not be able to satisfy the EPOE because any reason why God does not control evil would have to be of sufficient weight to justify why people experience so much pointless evil. THEODS THAT MAY SOLVE EPOE BUT REFUTE IT!!!
Some may argue that the EPOE creates more problems for the existence of God because it also poses problems for design arguments for the existence of God. Natural evil, overwhelming in quantity and quality, challenges design arguments that claim God created the world as a perfect design comprising of order and regularity, as it brings into question why God being the creator, did not programme the laws of nature to be less destructive. So, the EPOE reduces God to a flawed designer who created a malfunctioned design, thus making belief in God seem wrong.
It can be said that the LPOE creates more problems for belief in God, especially in Christianity, since it questions the morality and power of God, a central assumption to all major religions. The LPOE dictates that since evil exists God must fail to be omnibenevolent and so actively inflicts evil upon us or must fail to be omnipotent, who simply cannot control evil. These two propositions go against traditional Christian beliefs about God, and so effectively strike Christianity itself. But this is a weak argument since the EPOE also questions God’s morality in allowing the infliction of pointless pain and suffering. It further enhances God’s perceived malevolence and impotence by saying that as God is omniscient he knew of the evil that would occur in the world before he made it so he should not have made the world in order to prevent the evil.
In conclusion, it is obvious the EPOE creates more of a problem than belive in the existence of God than the logical problem of evil. The reason for this originates from the fact that the EPOE is a more complex argument entailing not only the premises of the LPOE but also additional ones. These additional premises are also of more weight since they refer to the objective world everyone experiences.
How do I structure it??? WHat COUNTER ARGUMENTS???? Helpeee its 15 marks 30 mins!!!!