Rowe's evidential argument shows that pointless suffering is antecedently more probable given no omni-benevolent God, giving aesthetic deism a systematic evidential advantage on this data.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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.'
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.
aesthetic deism(The alternative hypothesis employed in the decisive evidence argument): An alternative hypothesis to omni-theism, posited as many times more probable than omni-theism; arguably a form of theism itself
antecedently more probable(in probability and philosophical reasoning): More likely to be true based on what we'd expect before looking at specific evidence; basically, it makes more sense initially.

Based on where you are in your exploration