The existence of God and evil theme is the object of numerous arguments and contradictions. The followers of the opposite ideas belong to theistic and atheistic views. They argue with each other trying to prove that their ideas are real due to the empirical evidence they found. However, professor Stephen Law presented an entirely new hypothesis about the evil-god challenge, which cannot be purely atheistic. It is necessary to admit that his work is an experiment enabling the author to talk about people who like following the Bible or not. Law’s views are quite controversial since he confronts the position of all-good God and the one of all-evil God. In contrast to Law’s arguments, William Rowe presents the discussion about the problem of evil; however, his concepts refer to purely atheistic views. Although Law discusses atheistic ideas on the evil problems, his theory is not good, because his arguments are contradictory and not properly explained.
evil-God challenge is an argumentative hypothesis based on two theses of the good God and evil God existence. Actually, these two notions are logically incomparable. The professor assumes that these two theses are controversial and the miraculous phenomena cannot exist at the same time (Law, 2007, p. 154). Supposing good God is real as the first cause and reason of the universe and the Earth creation, one can assume that he can have a reason to allow evil exist (Law, 2007, p. 153). Besides, he gives the possibility for evil to destroy everything. The presence of evil in life is overwhelming. It is possible to develop the following argument: the existence of good God is impossible because of the unlimited evil on the Earth. However, the professor regards the problem from the other side. He presents the issue of good. The author considers the possibility of all-evil god existence. Therefore, the presence of good events, pleasant feelings, and beautiful creatures contradicts that point. In addition, he cannot understand why good God must be better that the evil one. The evil God does not prohibit the human free will (Law, 2007, p. 155). He gives all the possibilities for the person to satisfy desires. Law considers that it is not bad. According to Law’s thesis, the evil god cannot exist because of the overwhelming amount of good (2007, p.153). Therefore, the position of the professor is based on the problem of performing the Bible laws. It is about people who like to perform the Holy law and those who do not like to do it. Law discusses the controversial position although the general idea is not atheistic. The evil God challenge is an attempt to convince a person to believe in equality of evil and good and recognize the evil as a freedom for people.
The concept of Professor Law is quite controversial, and it does not present the atheistic ideas; he regards the same thoughts without fresh evidence which cannot prove his position. Besides, he proclaims the necessity of evil and good. The evidential problem of evil is not convincing, because the Bible gives all the necessary arguments and explanations for all problems that Law arises. “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31, New International Version). The symbol of the prince means demon. The overwhelming amount of evil in life is a consequence of the ruling of this prince. However, good God can interfere with people’s life and protect them if they ask Him about it; however, humans are willing to have more freedom. According to the quote mentioned before, the Almighty promises to destroy the regime and smash evil. Therefore, sometimes it seems that the author did not read the Bible at all. The argument about free will is not proper because the possibility to live without prohibitions leads to anarchy. The laws of the Gospel are good and do not limit the rights of the person. These rules are important for the world because they limit the evil free will. A big number of problems that people face today are the result of human life without prohibitions. Both theists and atheists recognize that the human is a paradox mixture of evil and good. Stanley J. Grenz comments on this point in his book Theology for the Community of God: “We are God’s good handiwork, but we have fallen into sin” (2000, p. 181). Consequently, the nature of humans is a source of all events that take place in the world, both good and bad.
However, the problem of evil is an object of deep investigation of many scientists, and William Rowe is one of them. Rowe’s discussion of the problem of evil is a classical atheistic idea. His arguments are consecutive and have clear atheistic statements. In addition, the scientist’s positions do not assume the existence of any god at all. Therefore, Rowe’s arguments prove the absence of faith in the Almighty and admit the perfection of nature without some other miraculous power. Rowe considers that evil controls the world and has no profit of this control due to useless suffering of innocent animals and people (2007, p. 61). The author denies all possibilities of the highest wisdom existence and insists on the natural system of life, which may allow some sufferings. However, the philosopher does not deny the theism as a concept. Moreover, he considers that the belief in God can be justified. Rowe admits the absolute absence of the highest good power of God, since there is no scientific evidence to prove it. Scientist’s atheistic theory is based on the evidential problem of evil. He is sure that the natural evil exists because no cruel events in nature have logical explanation. In contrast to this idea, the Bible insists on the holy good nature of the Almighty. The philosopher denies this possibility because he gives examples from the natural tragedies, confirming the position of the pointless of suffering. He assumes that the wholly good being does not exist at all (2007, p. 61). Rowe’s arguments are purely atheistic, but they have obvious and precise examples and arguments, not contradicting each other. Nevertheless, the theories of Rowe and Law have some similarities because they both deal with the same problems.
Although the theories of Stephen Law and William Rowe are closely connected and focused on the same ideas about evil, they have more opposite features than the common ones. Of course, both hypotheses have the right to exist since they have some elements of the evidential truth. The Rowe’s statements are precise and based on the serious arguments. His ideas can be accepted as a theoretical concept of atheism. In opposition to Rowe’s evidential problem of evil, Stephen Law provides several ideas; some of them are not only controversial but also conflicting with the general ideas of Atheism. The professor does not decline the possibility of the Highest Cause existence. This idea contradicts the concept of atheism because it is based on the existence of evil. In addition to it, he does not support his ideas with proper arguments. He opposes the concept of all good God and evil however, the existence of the first one does not deny the existence of the second one. In contrast to this idea, James Franklin Harris states that the logical problem of evil does not have any threat for theism (2002, p. 243). This assumption is easy to prove because the world is full of necessary contradictions, which make life possible. For example, night and day create the general space for time and have their advantages since one aspect cannot exist without another. Consequently, the positions of the philosophers are different, though they have many atheistic ideas. Nevertheless, the Law conception of the evil god challenge is quite conflicting and inconsistent. It is possible to assume that life without religion is impossible because a person should have a hope for better life or the highest protection. The presented theories can cause panic among people and foster their disappointment with life, which has no sense without belief in something good.
In conclusion, the existence of God is possible even if the presence of evil is evidential. The ideas of atheistic philosophers reject the concept of God due to evil events that happen all over the world. Professor Stephen Law tries to present new hypothesis about the evil God challenge. However, it does not have a precise atheistic thesis. The philosopher presents his certain conviction that the evil God is not, actually, bad. The author gives some evidence without proper arguments about this concept. His statements are absolutely contradicting. In contrast to Law’s ideas, the discussion of William Rowe has more obvious examples that support atheism. These examples are based on evil existence. Nevertheless, both conceptions have the right to be considered. However, most people think that life without a belief in something good does not have any sense. The theistic and atheistic evidence will always contradict each other; however, the assumption of a theory that is correct depends on personal perceptions.