The problem of Evil

The strongest philosophical argument against God’s existence is the problem of natural evil. Of all the atheistic arguments, this is the one that has been around for longest, that has had the most words written about it, and that draws the most diverse responses from Christians.

Moral evil is not a problem to believers as they can live with the fact that God gave human beings free will and in so created moral evil.  Moral evil is the evil that is created by being that has thought the action though and knows what is going to happen.

In brief, the problem is that the traditional conception of God is as omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent (all kind and loving) being.  This implies that if God exists then he knows how to, wants to, and is able to prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, though, then he actually would prevent all suffering. Suffering, though, is a familiar part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. There is, therefore, no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God.

I feel that the existence of evil proves or at least undermines the idea of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent (all kind and loving) God.  This does not mean that there is not a creator of the universe; I just feel there cannot be a God that would not stop the huge amounts of violence that is caused by evil.

There are many different responses to the problem of evil. None of them is entirely satisfactory alone, but together they do cast doubt on whether the existence of evil disproves the claim that God exists.

The first response to the problem of evil is the free-will defence. Much of the evil in the world occurs only because we choose to create it. The greatest evils in the world are those inflicted by man upon man. In making the world, God faced a choice: he could create free agents like us, or he could create automata, robots, without the ability to make choices of their own. God chose to create free agents, and he made the right choice; a world containing free agents is clearly more valuable than a world of robots.

Join now!

The pay-off for this is the abuse of freedom that we see around us. Free agents sometimes choose to abuse their freedom, to do wrong. The wrong that we do, though, the suffering that we cause, great though it may be, is a price worth paying for something that is profoundly valuable: genuine freedom. Though God could have prevented evil by creating a world of automata, it is a good thing that he did not.  Would you create a world of robots or a world of freedom and love?

The free-will defence is, I believe, a partial success. I believe ...

This is a preview of the whole essay