The problem of Evil

[Charlotte408]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod

How does this add up?? None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right? And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

 

[Formosus]

A morally perfect, all powerful God would have a duty to end evil and injustice, or simply not create it to begin with.

The Catholic (or well Platonic answer) is that evil doesn’t exist. “Evil” as a substance is not a thing. “Evilness” is a state where the essential goodness of a thing is lacking in it. So when one sins by lying, no evil has been added to them but some some goodness has been lost though the actions of free will. Of course, some people still find this problematic in Catholicism (but in neo-Platonism it does a pretty good job of dealing with the “problem of evil”).

 

[Borz]

None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right?

Actually it does. A morally perfect being cannot allow any evil - because evil cannot be justified - if it could be justified, it would not be evil.

And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

No, it is not “right”. There is a catholic doctrine which says that no good can come of evil. One cannot commit or allow an “evil” act, just because some “greater good” will come out of it. It is very clearly stated that “the end does not justify the means” - and that doctrine is very well stated and established - it is a doctrine which is supported by both religious and secular people.

The so-called “problem of evil” is the eternal “thorn” in the side of christianity. It simply cannot be explained - and the numerous attempts to “explain it away” are spectacular failures.

 

[SwissGuard25]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod

How does this add up?? None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right? And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

Does the Dark exist?
No, it is simply the absence of light.
Does the Cold exist?
No, it is simply the absence of Heat.

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Evil exists.

“Evil” is a subjective term. That is: you cannot prove “evil” exists, you can only demonstrate by anecdotal means that things happen people do not like. Until there is an objective definition of evil, this argument is baseless.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it was C.S. Lewis who admitted that the problem of evil was one of the only convincing arguments against God.

Personally, I never have seen the issue. In the absence of God as a moral touchstone, the concept of evil seems meaningless and relativistic to me.

C.S. Lewis did write a book “The Problem of Pain” which goes into great depth of the subject. Peter Kreeft’s “Making Sense of Suffering” is similar.

 

[Charlotte408]

The so-called “problem of evil” is the eternal “thorn” in the side of christianity. It simply cannot be explained - and the numerous attempts to “explain it away” are spectacular failures.

Oh. Well I spectacularly failed then I knew it didn’t come from Him but that He allowed it because it’s a sort of paradox… a paradox of the cross…in suffering we draw closwer to Christ.

Does the Dark exist?
No, it is simply the absence of light.
Does the Cold exist?
No, it is simply the absence of Heat.

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

I love it! So someone could say ‘evil’ in the basic broad sense doesn’t exist - but rather people do evil things??

But then someone could say if there is no evil, how could someone do something ‘evil’…

 

[runningdude]

If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

God will eliminate all evil, He exists on a perpetual time scale. From His perspective, all evil is vanquished.

Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

non-sequitor

 

[Charlotte408]

God will eliminate all evil, He exists on a perpetual time scale. From His perspective, all evil is vanquished.

Okay… Okay…

 

[Charlotte408]

Does the Dark exist?
No, it is simply the absence of light.
Does the Cold exist?
No, it is simply the absence of Heat.

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

Could this then be flipped?? If dark doesn’t ‘exist’ and is just the absence of light, could someone say ‘light’ doesn’t exist - and is just the absence of dark??

It sounded really pretty and poetic…until I tried to use it

I’m thinking along the lines of white and black. White is all the colors…but black is the absence of ANY colors…so you couldn’t say that white is the absence of black - because it is so much more - when black is nothing at all. Does that work?

 

[danserr]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod

How does this add up?? None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right? And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

This argument is suggesting that there is a contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil (or suffering). So stated, the argument is invalid. There is another option not accounted for by the argument. It may be that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the existence of evil. As long as this is even possibly true, then there is not contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil.

One example might be the existence of free will. Free will is a very great good, necessary to allow people to freely choose to enter loving relationships with God. Of course, some people abuse their free will and evil then ensues.

People have mentioned CS Lewis’s The Problem of Pain as one useful book. For a short pop-level article on the subject, you can also see reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5350

 

[karaleigh]

Swiss Guard25

Does the Dark exist?
No, it is simply the absence of light.
Does the Cold exist?
No, it is simply the absence of Heat.

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

Good answer!

 

[Borz]

Does the Dark exist?
No, it is simply the absence of light.
Does the Cold exist?
No, it is simply the absence of Heat.

Evil doesn’t exist it is simply the absence of good.

Will this kind of shallow thinking never die out?

Heat and cold are relative human terms describing the Brownian motion of the molecules. We perceive a certain level as “hot”, other levels as “cold” and yet other levels as “comfortable”. Light and dark describe the limited functionality of the human eyes which can perceive only a limited spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation.

Evil is not the “absence” of something, it is the “presence” of a malevolent action, or the allowing of such malevolent actions, if those actions can be prevented. It would be nice if such basic terms would not have to be explained over and over again. But I guess it is too much to hope for.

 

[Borz]

It may be that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the existence of evil. As long as this is even possibly true, then there is not contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil.

Ah, the good old “maybe” argument. Sheer nonsense. A “maybe” is not an argument. Even if you could show that every instance of “evil” is simply the optimal way of bringing forth some “greater good” (try to show what “greater” good came out of the Holocaust), you would run afoul of the Catholic doctrine of “the end cannot justify the means”. Because that is the point stated by the Catholic Church. To deny it would be heretical.

 

[Whadyamean]

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

How does this add up?? None of the premises state that God is bound to, or obligated to eliminate evil, right? And we don’t claim so, it’s that He ‘allows’ evil for a greater good right?

What are your assumptions here? Are they true? Are you absolutely sure they are true? How would you see this if you didn’t think that way?

A) Why do you assume that God is personal, as implied by your statements?

B) Do your definitions of Omni-- actually comprehend the Reality of God, or your human thoughts* about* God?

B) What constitutes evil? Is something evil from a particular perspective and relative to a desired outcome, or belief system, or is it evil by itself? Walt Disney films come to mind. Nature is Nature and does what it does. Disney made a mint personifying animals. Anthropomorphism, anyone?

 

[Borz]

One example might be the existence of free will. Free will is a very great good, necessary to allow people to freely choose to enter loving relationships with God. Of course, some people abuse their free will and evil then ensues.

This is William Lane Craig’s feeble attempt to explain away the problem. Of course Craig is not Catholic, so for him the Catholic doctrine that “the end does not justify the means” may not even apply. He may very well think that the end - to enter freely with a “loving” relationship with God - does justify the means, the allowing the evil actions.

There are several problems with his approach. First: his assertion that “entering into a loving relationship with God” is some kind of a “greater good”, is simply a personal opinion, nothing more. The fact that many people share it, does not elevate this concept to become an objective principle, it remains a widespread opinion.

But, let’s take it seriously for the sake of the disussion (even though it does not merit such a treatment). Suppose that the ability to enter into a loving relationship with God is truly valuable. In that case one needs to have the volitional option to love God (in other words to worship God), or to “reject” God by not worshipping him. That is all the “freedom” the person needs. There is absolutely no need for further “freedoms”, like torturing or raping or slaughtering others.

So, even if one takes Craig’s simplistic little attempt seriously, he fails to establish that allowing the “level of freedom” is logically necessary for making the volitional choice of “worshipping” God, or not.

 

[awatkins69]

I don’t see the problem of evil as being a huge problem when we understand our terms correctly. God’s goodness doesn’t consist in his being a “moral exemplar.” This would be just to turn him into a really nice, big, sky-daddy. On the contrary God is Being Itself. He revealed to Moses that He IS who IS. Since God is being itself, and being is convertible with the transcendental of goodness, God is Goodness itself. God doesn’t have obligations to creatures since obligation implies that the one under obligation owes something; God owes nothing to his creation. He doesn’t even owe us salvation. He did not have to become incarnate to save us from our sins. Creation, salvation, and even our very existence are all supererogatory. They are all graces–this word stemming from the word gratuitous, meaning freely; he freely created and gave us whatever we have, under no compulsion to do so. He is loving insofar as he wills the good for his creatures, i.e. wills their very being. He loves some more than others and perfects some more than others; this is the Thomistic understanding of predestination and predilection.

The problem of evil can’t disprove God’s existence; if a first cause exists with the attributes of God, then it exists, period. If it isn’t the nice guy who wants to maximize your utility, so what? If this doesn’t accord with what you mean by goodness, so what? Our language used to describe God must be analogical anyway unless we are to make his ways our ways. But on the contrary, the Lord says, “My ways are not your ways; neither are my thoughts your thoughts.”

“Omnibenevolence” was an unheard of term before the 18th century or so. The Catholic medievals understood God’s goodness to be ontic goodness, not moral goodness. This is why the problem of evil was easily dismissed, and even when it was brought up it wasn’t brought up in the form it is today.

@OP: If you’re interested, I suggest Brian Davies’ book on the problem of evil. He handles the question from a much more Thomistic perspective than most writers these days.

 

[awatkins69]

Actually it does. A morally perfect being cannot allow any evil - because evil cannot be justified - if it could be justified, it would not be evil.

No. Allowing an evil can clearly be justified sometimes. Presumably you think lying is bad; nevertheless, the state is not thereby obliged to ban all lies. Hence, sometimes allowing evils is justified, which falsifies your statement that if allowing some evil to happen is justified, then it wasn’t an evil in the first place.

No, it is not “right”. There is a catholic doctrine which says that no good can come of evil. One cannot commit **or allow **an “evil” act, just because some “greater good” will come out of it. It is very clearly stated that “the end does not justify the means” - and that doctrine is very well stated and established - it is a doctrine which is supported by both religious and secular people.

There are two ways to disprove a position. One is to challenge its premises. The other is to show some internal inconsistency. Now, what you say in bold is false. If you’re going to accuse the Catholic position of inconsistency you have to go on its terms. And there is a Catholic doctrine called the Principle of Double Effect which says clearly that sometimes allowing an evil is justified.

The so-called “problem of evil” is the eternal “thorn” in the side of christianity. It simply cannot be explained - and the numerous attempts to “explain it away” are spectacular failures.

The problem of evil is a cute little trick for atheism. It’s not a problem at all when properly understood. The logical problem of evil has been all but abandoned these days in favor of “evidential” or inductive problems of evil. But if there is no *logical *inconsistency–which even most atheists agree on–and theists think they have knock-down arguments for God’s existence, then I don’t see why theists can’t just say that this world happens to be the one which all admit is possible wherein God and evil consistently exist.

But I don’t think your criticisms even apply in the first place, because I don’t think God is a “morally perfect being,” though he is a supremely good one. I explain the sense of this term above. Still, the position you attack is not obviously inconsistent.

 

[danserr]

Ah, the good old “maybe” argument. Sheer nonsense. A “maybe” is not an argument. Even if you could show that every instance of “evil” is simply the optimal way of bringing forth some “greater good” (try to show what “greater” good came out of the Holocaust), you would run afoul of the Catholic doctrine of “the end cannot justify the means”. Because that is the point stated by the Catholic Church. To deny it would be heretical.

No in this case, “maybe” is enough. Since you don’t understand that let me explain the form of the argument.

OP asked about the following argument (in shorted form)

1. If evil exists, then God does not exist
2. Evil exists
3. God does not exist.
   Now the OP supported this by extending the argument, but this is, at heart, the logical form of the argument from evil.

So stated, the argument is a failure because it does not account for all the possibilities. Since you do not understand this, I will give an example.

1. Borz is an apple or a banana
2. Borz is not an apple
3. Borz is a banana.

Is this a good argument? Of course not, because it does not account for all the possibilities. It is also logically possible that Borz is a human being. As long as this is even possibly true, then the argument so phrased fails.

In the same way, the logical form of the argument from evil fails because it does not account for the following possibility, “that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the existence of evil.” As long as this is even possibly true, then the argument so phrased is a failure.

Hence the argument from evil as stated by the OP fails and is widely accepted as a failure even by most atheist philosophers today.

First: his assertion that “entering into a loving relationship with God” is some kind of a “greater good”, is simply a personal opinion, nothing more. The fact that many people share it, does not elevate this concept to become an objective principle, it remains a widespread opinion.

But, let’s take it seriously for the sake of the disussion (even though it does not merit such a treatment).

If it’s not worth taking seriously, I wonder that you bother, but perhaps you really know better.

“Entering into a loving relationship with God” is indeed a very great good. God (if he exists) is a being worthy of worship. He is the source of all goodness, happiness, holiness and made us for eternal happiness with him. As such, he is the objectively proper object of human love and worship. To deny this, as you want to, is simply willful blindness.

The rest of your answer is irrelevant because you can offer nothing beyond the bare assertion that humans only need on choice, the choice to worship God or not. How would this work with embodied creatures? There are a whole host of assumptions that go into this suggestion that you need to explain. The bare assertion alone will not work.

 

[Perplexity]

There have been some notable atheistic thoughts on the logical problem of evil.

For instance, this one tries to formulate a logical poe to which Plantinga’s defense is irrelevant:

philpapers.org/rec/HANRTP

Oppy just takes Plantinga’s defense head on and dismisses it in his Arguing About God’s. Although, WLC claims Oppy is just misunderstanding the defense, I think it’s quite a serious claim to say someone of Oppy’s caliber is “just misunderstanding” such a well known, and important philosophical argument.

In any case, I think the evidential problem of evil carries far more weight than most theist’s realize. Even WLC says it’s the strongest argument for atheism (although he obviously thinks he has good reasons for rejecting it).