Swinburne and van Inwagen argue that the goods of soul-making, moral agency, and epistemic freedom require a world with precisely the kind and quantity of suffering we observe, making high suffering counts evidentially neutral.

?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.

Epistemic freedom(as a good that supposedly requires suffering to exist): The freedom to choose what to believe or not believe based on your own thinking, rather than being forced to know or believe something with absolute certainty.
Evidentially neutral(describing how high amounts of suffering relate to arguments about God's existence): Neither supporting nor opposing a conclusion; something that doesn't count as evidence for or against a claim because it could fit equally well with different explanations.
Soul-making(one of the goods Hick argues requires evil to exist): The spiritual and moral development that happens when people face challenges and make difficult choices; becoming a better person through struggle.
Swinburne(in philosophy of religion): Richard Swinburne, a famous British philosopher who wrote about God, religion, and the problem of evil—he argued that God's existence can be rationally defended despite the existence of evil in the world.

Based on where you are in your exploration