Rowe's evidential argument demonstrates that the operative logical structure—whether existence, amount, or type—depends entirely on background assumptions about divine omnipotence, not on evil's phenomenology.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Evidential argument(as used in logic and argumentation): A type of argument that uses evidence to show something is probably true, rather than definitely true—like saying 'these clues suggest the butler did it' instead of 'the butler definitely did it.'
Logical structure(as used in logic): The underlying pattern of how an argument is organized—which statements connect to which, and how they're supposed to support each other.
Rowe(identifies the philosopher being discussed): William Rowe is a philosopher famous for arguing that the existence of suffering in the world makes it hard to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
background assumptions(Davies 2003a, p. 43): Assumptions an externalist must hold in order to rationally grant that the *premises are warranted, which already imply the conclusion (3)
divine omnipotence(Reframing of omnipotence in response to the objection that necessity limits God): The supreme power of God's will over being, understood not merely as unrestricted agency but as the ground of logical and ontological necessity itself
phenomenology(Preliminary working definition offered as a starting point for understanding the discipline): The study of phenomena: what appears to us and its appearing

1 topic