Objections Against Daniel Z Korman’s Argument: “Can God Allow Suffering?”
I will be discussing the argument by analogy from Daniel Z Korman - Proving that God does not exist. I believe this argument is unsound because of discrepancies within his use of analogy to prove that God does not exist. The first premise to Korman’s argument is “you should not believe that all the suffering in Nornia is necessary for some unknown greater good that its ruler has in mind.” The justification being the fact that there is no unknown greater good that comes from the suffering the people of Nornia are subjected to. Just because there is a possibility for an unknown greater good to be conceived by suffering does not mean that it is true. Therefore, there is no reason to take this possibility as fact because there is no concrete evidence to prove it to be true. I believe this argument is…show more content… This is not something the creator of the universe would say. If the creator of the universe or god would want power, endless fortune, and dominion over others, he would have simply willed it into existence. This is on the assumption that he would have the means and desire to alter the plane of physical existence which we reside on. With that in mind, we can safely conclude that there is a significant difference between the suffering within Nornia and the suffering present in our own world. The second premise to Korman's argument: “If you should not believe that all the suffering in Nornia is necessary for some unknown greater good that its ruler has in mind, then you should not believe that all the suffering in the actual world is necessary for some unknown greater good that an omnibeing has in mind.” The justification for premise 2 is similar to that of premise 1 in which he states that possibility does not equate to truth. Although he states there is no discernible difference between our world and Nornia. He also claims there is no possibility for an adequate explanation of the
