A challenge to the Problem of Evil

By: The Logical Christian

In this paper I will be attempting to demonstrate the problems with one of

Atheists/Deists most common arguments against a personal God: The Problem of Evil.

Assumptions of The Problem of Evil

A theorem is only as good as its as its assumptions.

Alexander Vilenkin, Agnostic Physicist/Cosmologist, and author of Many worlds in one:

The search for other universes.

This is something Alexander Vilenkin once said to Lawrence Krauss in an email about

Big Bang Cosmology. This applies to arguments as well.

Example:

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The assumption of this argument is that all men are mortal. However thats only one half

of the argument, then next part is where the arguer attempts to justify the assumptions in the

argument with evidence or logical reasoning. However there are sometimes assumptions that

can be accepted without needing to provide any evidence. Like Leibnizs version of the

Cosmological argument one of the assumptions is that the universe exists, thats an assumption

I think we can all accept without having to provide any evidence for it. But anyways lets take a

look at the assumption of The Problem of Evil (This is the most common form of it. But its not

the only version)

1. If God exists, then he is all powerful and all loving

2. If God is all powerful and all loving, then evil should not exist.
 3. Evil exists

4. Therefore an all powerful and all loving God does not exist

This argument has two assumptions

1. That this kind of God cannot exist if evil does.

2. That evil exists.

Now the question when we see this is, can these assumptions be justified? This will be

addressed later in the essay.

Relative Morality
The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of

morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological

adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable

set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody

says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves

. . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to

survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .

Michael Ruse Atheist Philosopher of Science at Guelph University, Author of Can a

Darwinian be a Christian?

In this section I will be covering the position that morality is relative. There are lots of

ethical theories like the general welfare theory, individual morality theory, etc. However the

theories fall under two categories:

1. Objective ethics

Examples: Divine Command Theory (debatable), Welfare theory (debatable)

2. Subjective ethics

Examples: Individual morality theory

 Because when we look at it, one of the biggest questions to the Philosopher is stated Is

morality subjective or objective? When we address evil this question is very important. I one

time had a discussion with David Silverman who is an atheist author (The Problem of Evil is one

his most common arguments). He said this was an irrelevant question, but when you look at his

position of moral relativism and this argument, you can see how he is logically inconsistent with

his viewpoint. When one claims that morality is relative they claim that all morality is just up to

the individual that what theyre doing is not actually wrong. But if we claim this, then we also

conclude therefore that evil doesnt actually exist. But if Davids position asserts that evil doesnt

exist, then his position contradicts the second assumption required for this argument to work in

this case: evil exists. So by asserting moral relativism he contradicts The Problem of Evils most

vital assumption, therefore making him logically inconsistent as The Law of Non-Contradiction

states: A cannot be both A and Non A at the same time and in the same sense. So one is

allowed to use this argument if they want, but if want to be logically consistent with it, they must

believe in objective morality.

Objective Morality
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another you are in

fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one conforms more nearly than the other.

But the standard that measures two things is different than either. You are, in fact, comparing

them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such as a Real right, independent of

what people think, and that some peoples ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.

C.S Lewis, Christian Philosopher of Oxford University, Author of Mere Christianity.

When we talk about evil as mentioned in the previous paragraph is vital to all this. If we

affirm that there is such a thing as Objective Morality, then we can be logically consistent with
the second assumption that evil exists. However now that only raises the bigger question of

Where does Objective Morality come from? Now the skeptic has another problem. If they

affirm objective morality, now they have to justify its existence. But if the skeptic cannot justify

an objective standard of ethics with God, then hes still inconsistent with his usage of this

argument.

The Burden of Proof

A more important question we must both ask ourselves when addressing The Problem of

Evil is Where does the Burden of Proof lie? Many atheists that have challenged me with this

argument have stated that the theist is the one who holds the Burden of Proof. However Logic

disagrees. Logically speaking those who make positive/negative claims (John Doe exists, the

government is corrupt, Solipsism is false, etc.) are the ones who carry the burden of proof.

When one uses the Logical version of The Problem of Evil, they are making the negative

claim. In this case: that the existence of an all powerful and all loving God is logically

incompatible with the existence of evil. That is a claim of knowledge and therefore requires

justification, evidence, and/or proof.

Knowledge/ Evidence for the argument.

Logical arguments from evil are a dying (dead) breed. For all we know, even an

omnipotent and omniscient being may be forced to allow evil for the sake of obtaining some

important good. Our knowledge of goods, evils, and their logical relations is much too limited to

prove that this could not be the case.

Paul Draper Agnostic Philosopher of Purdue University.

The next question we should also ask ourselves is Do we have the sufficient evidence

necessary for this reasoning to be sound and valid?

 The quote by Professor Draper say that human minds are finite. And given that, well

never have the sufficient proof to put this argument through. Thats if one wants to be able to

know for sure that the idea that God can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil is

logically impossible, one must know three historical facts:

1. That all past evils have not lead to good in the past

2. That all past evils have not lead to good in the present

3. That all past and present evils will not lead to good into the future.

But as Draper pointed out, our knowledge is much too limited to be able to prove any of

this. The only thing that could know these three would be a mind that can comprehend the past,

present, and the future. However the only mind that could comprehend that would be God. Thus

we would be proving the very thing this argument claims to disprove. And with our finite minds

being incapable of comprehending this, we have no way to be able to provide any tangible or

philosophical verification for this. Thus we would be arguing from knowledge we dont have, so

indeed we would be arguing from ignorance.

Free Will
Defining Free Will is not something I plan to do here. And thats because defining Free

Will can be very difficult as Walter Stace pointed out in his article The Problem of Free Will.

How does a verbal dispute arise? Let us consider a case which, although it is absurd in

the sense that no one would ever make the mistake which is involved in it, yet illustrates the

principle which we shall have to use in the solution of the problem. Suppose that someone

believed that the word man means a certain sort of five-legged animal; in short that five-

legged animal is the correct definition of man. He might then look around the world, and rightly

observing that there are no five-legged animals in it, he might proceed to deny the existence of
men. This preposterous conclusion would have been reached because he was using an

incorrect definition of man.

So what Dr. Stace is saying here is that when people define Free Will and they do it

incorrectly, we will be getting nowhere. So he proposes that we dont try to define except with

common usage. So Im not 100% sure that giving a definition will really help our case given we

have a difficulty doing so. So rather than waste trying to do that, lets focus on why Free Will is

important to the Problem of Evil.

If we dont have Free Will, which some people say that we dont have, then we have a

problem. Because Evil is defined as doing something morally wrong. But if there is such a thing

are moral incorrectness, then that implies a moral responsibility. So there is such a thing as

moral responsibility that therefore implies an ability to be able to carry out the responsibility. Its

not fair that we should be able to condemn someone for doing something when they didnt do it

freely? That doesnt make sense morally or logically. So if we dont have free will, then evil is

pointless to argue for, or justify. Thus if one wants to argue for evil with this non-existent

problem, then we have to understand that we have Free Will, otherwise, we have a

contradictory belief system.

Conclusion
The Problem of Evil contains assumptions that are not justifiable or provable. The

Burden of Proof is on the one using the argument, not the one being challenged with it. And one

must be able to justify an objective standard of morality in order to be able to use this

consistently. If one cannot do so without God, then this argument falls apart. I hope for everyone

reading this, it answers your questions about it and helps to shed light on it.

God Bless you all.