Nietzsche's Argument For The Existence Of God

Evil comes in many forms, and likewise, for philosophers, possess many problems especially the existence of God. The problem of evil is also referred to as the problem of suffering. First, there is what is called the logical problem of evil. Like all rational people, theists can’t help but acknowledge that the world is filled with evil. Here we are understanding evil as being all forms of bad stuff. It is everything in the vast spectrum of badness from small thefts to plagues and everything in between. Theists and atheists both agree that evil exists but they disagree regarding other aspects.
Theism is the belief that God exists. Whereas atheism is the belief that God doesn’t exist. Rational theism is one form of belief that there are evidential
Atheists argue that this creates a contradiction: A set of beliefs that can’t be all true at the same time. If one is true, another must be false.
Since evil is bad, atheists argue that if there is an all-knowing God and he knows about the evil, he might even have known about it before it even happened. And if he is all powerful he can stop it. And if he’s all good. then he would want to stop it. And yet he doesn’t and the evil continues.
The Greek philosopher Epicurus gives one of the earliest statements of the problem of evil. This is called the Epicurean Paradox. Epicurus stated: Is God willing, but unable? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come in? Is he neither able or willing, then why call him God?
The 20th-century Austrian philosopher J.L. Mackie attempted to demonstrate the problem by reformulating the Epicurean paradox into what he called the inconsistent triad. The inconsistent triad is a collection of 3 statements that Mackie claims can’t logically all be true the same time without leading to a
The advantage is that if the premises are true then we have to accept the conclusion as being true. However, the disadvantage is that if we can show that any one of the premises isn’t completely true, then the conclusion is falsifiable.
For example, the first argument, although this statement might sound obviously true, one might say that it is not correct to think of evil as a thing that actually exists. One train of thought is that since evil is simply the absence of good then it is not a thing of itself so it can’t be said to actually exist. Another train of thought common in Eastern religions is that evil and suffering are human illusions. They are the names we give to situations when our own greed and selfish motives are unsatisfied.
The second type of argument for the problem of evil is the evidential problem. One of the key proponents of this argument was William Rowe whose opinions differ from the logical problem of evil in that it doesn’t claim that God’s existence is completely incompatible with the existence of evil but rather that the existence of evil makes his existence unlikely or improbable. In this sense, the argument is inductive in which it doesn’t claim to prove its