In this essay, I will discuss how the philosophical "problem of evil" aims to refute the existence of God, its solidity and its persuasiveness, and why Ultimately, I believe the premises of the argument are unsuccessful due to their parochial nature. The problem of evil briefly described supports the position that God cannot exist because the plethora of evil in this world would be incompatible with the existence of a God attributed to being omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. I will focus largely on Blackburn (1999), from which most of the objections and counterarguments to this argument will arise, and will occasionally reference certain verses from the Christian Bible when discussing the Judeo-Christian God contextually. The three objections I will consider relate to: God being a different type of God, whose characteristics deviate from the Abrahamic understanding of him (his omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence). The second being that God exists but is inscrutable (mysterious and beyond human comprehension), and the third being that the value of good or good itself presupposes evil, which then implies that evil is compatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent Deity. I will conclude that these objections highlight the gaps and assumptions made in the premises of the problem of evil and show how they reveal the argument to be parochial and unpersuasive. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayA main theme/term of this essay requires contextual definition in order to avoid confusion, assumptions and/or misinterpretations and that is evil. When referring to evil, the usage implies things like murder, the infliction of pain in any form or manner, whether physical, mental, or emotional, lust, and other related evils . When referring to broader, less man-made evils, such as natural disasters, epidemics and accidents, Blackburn (1999), I will make it clear that I do so. The logical form of the problem of evil is this: (1) If God exists, He is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. (2) There is a great deal of evil in this world. (3) The amount of evil in this world is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent entity. (4) Thus, no omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent entity exists. (5) God therefore does not exist. The first objection follows from the first premise of this argument. The assumption here is that God (by definition) is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good/loving. It is well known that this is how he is described in the Abrahamic religions, but that does not mean that this understanding of God is necessarily true. God actually couldn't stand any of these qualities - or he could stand one or two. Epicurus puts it this way: “Does God want to prevent evil, but cannot he? So he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but unwilling? So he is malicious. Is he both able and willing? So where does the evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? So why call him God? » If He exists, it is impossible for us to know exactly what kind of God we are trying to prove or disprove. What I mean by this is that if we put aside things like religious experiences and biblical texts (both of which inherently require the existence of God to be true), there is no way logical to prove the characteristics of this God. Epicureasks the question of why we should call God God if there is a possibility that he does not possess the traits we have attributed to him. I have an answer to this question, and it is that he is indeed a different type of God; someone whose identity is not known to us and cannot be known through human logical reasoning. If we are to break the argument down into additional, more detailed premises, it is clear to see why the reasoning behind the problem of evil is valid (i.e. the conclusion is logically drawn from the premises of the argument) but is ultimately parochial with respect to premise (1). The argument in detail is as follows: (1) If God exists, he is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. (2) If he is omniscient, he knows everything bad in this world. (3) If he is omnibenevolent, he would want to put an end to this evil. (4) If he is omnipotent, he would have the power to do whatever he desires, that is, to put an end to all evil. (5) There is much evil in this world. (6) So much evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful being. (7) Thus, there is no being who is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful. (8) Therefore, God does not exist. The form of the argument is valid and coherent. But this certainly does not confirm that it is sound – “sound” meaning that all of its premises are true. Premises (2), (3), (4) and (5) are all true but premise (1) can be true or false. Thus, within reason, any response to this objection would ultimately lead us to question whether premise (1) is true and/or logically provable. The argument attempts to limit God's attributes to just these three, and in doing so, ignores other possible traits he might possess or lack. He knows the evil in this world. He has the power to stop this evil. He wants to stop this evil. However, He chooses not to do so. This is my understanding of the second objection to this argument. The second objection asserts that God is mysterious, inscrutable (i.e., impossible to understand or interpret), and that He works, cares, and loves in His own “divine” way, imperceptible to the human mind. For this objection, the focus will be on the Abrahamic God and the Holy Bible, as it is largely based on them. According to (Isaiah 55:8-9), God proclaims: “8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways. higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. » The general idea established in many religions (as seen above) is that God is incomprehensible to us. His thoughts transcend the capabilities of our limited human minds. “5 Our Lord is great and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. (Psalm 147:5) His ways are greater than ours. We can't begin to describe how and why he does the things he does. This is where the atheist critic enters the conversation. As Blackburn says: “The problem then becomes explaining what consequences it should have if we believe in an incomprehensible God. » Online Blackburn (1999). He then goes on to quote Wittgenstein who said: “A nothing will serve as well as a something of which nothing could be said. » If we cannot explain why he does the things he does, or at least know clearly and certainly of his existence, what do we gain by believing in this God? If we cannot distinguish God from good or evil, why believe in him? Simply put, what would be the point of believing in something we know nothing about. A rebuttal to this answer might be that - if we could,.