In This Selection, Rowe Presents His Own Version of the Argument

Multiple Choice

In this selection, Rowe presents his own version of the argument from evil:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. [Therefore] there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Concerning premise 2, Rowe declares, "In light of our experience and knowledge of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary absurd idea, quite beyond our belief."
-Rowe asks if it is reasonable to believe that there is some greater good so intimately connected to that suffering [of the fawn] that even an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have obtained that good without permitting that suffering or some evil at least as bad. His answer is that

A) it appears reasonable to believe this.
B) it is proven that this is true.
C) it does not appear reasonable to believe this.
D) it is proven that it is not reasonable to believe this.