In Rowe's treatment of the problem of evil in the world he uses a rationally probabilistic argument to prove that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. He uses massive evidence to show that it is more probable than improbable that the God of Christianity and Judaism does not exist. For his evidence he uses the prevalence of massive, unnecessary, and intense human and animal suffering that occurs daily. Such suffering is clearly evil, but if it does lead to some greater good, then we might just say that the suffering is justified. Even so, Rowe, taking the immense human and animal suffering as a clear instance of evil, can make a rationally probabilistic argument for atheism.
             First he writes that, "There are instances of intense suffering which and omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse (Snyder 2)." That is to say that with the amount of intense suffering in the world daily, each instance of suffering could not be so intimately connected to some greater good that the God of Christianity could not have obtained it without allowing such suffering. I cannot imagine the roundabout goodness that comes from an animal being tortuously killed by a freak incident in the middle of the woods somewhere in Laos, Thailand, that is just unthinkable, especially considering the quantity of evil in world.
             His next move is to say that the God of Christianity, being omniscient and wholly good, would prevent any intense suffering it could, so long as it does not lose some grater good or allow for an equal or greater evil. His last move is to say, "There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being (Snyder 2)." This is all to say that if there was and omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being, that could prevent such atrocities, then, based on its nature, it would. A lot of
             ...