Rectifying the Existence of God and Evil:

God, Humanity, and the Human Ideal

Victoria Schlie

PHI 323: Philosophical Apologetics

Dr. Rapinchuk

December 9, 2016
 Overview of the Problem of Evil

Viewing the presence of evil in this world through an atheistic or a theistic lens changes

the assumptions at the base of the argument as well as the implications of the argument. There is

also a split between a general theistic lens and a Christian theistic lens, as some theistic religions

do not accept the real existence of evil as Christian theism does. When explored logically, the

lens will determine whether the presence of evil is or is not a legitimate problem for theism,

particularly Christian theism.

Logical Implications

For a God who is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent to exist (Christian theism), His

necessary character must not contradict the existence of evil in the world. Assuming that evil has

real existence in the world, if God’s existence does contradict the existence of evil, His existence
1
is impossible (or at least highly improbable). Furthermore, the nature of evil, whether it is

warranted or unwarranted, impacts the argument. The presence of warranted evil is justified and

does not necessarily contradict the existence of God, but the presence of unwarranted or

meaningless evil (which appears to be much of the evil in the world at face value) points to the
2
absence of a teleological, good, and powerful God. Assumptions such as the existence of human

freewill, objective moral truths, and the definition of human flourishing or purpose also affect the

argument, as they impact what contradictions are considered plausible.

1
J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, “27: The Problem of Evil,” ​Philosophical
Foundations for a Christian Worldview,​ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 548-9.
2
Ibid.
1
 Emotional Implications

The existence of evil undoubtedly affects human psychological wellbeing, causing fear,

anxiety, anger, and confusion. These effects can be exacerbated when one struggles with his

belief in a real, loving God. At face value, the two seem incompatible, and experiencing horrible,

apparently unwarranted evils in this life can seem to out way the probability of God’s existence.

Whether one is unpreparedly struggling with or knowledgeably enduring the existence of both

evil and God affects his faith, feelings toward God and the world, and view of human nature.

Assumptions and Background Information

Objective Moral Truth

One fundamental assumption of the problem of evil seems to serve as a self-defeater:

implied objective moral truths. To claim that there is real evil in the world assumes that there are

real moral truths to be acted contrary to, as the dictionary definition of ‘evil’ is “morally
3
reprehensible.” Human intuition throughout history has pointed to the existence of objective

moral truths, so to claim that they do not exist would contradict a majority of human experience.

Even those who deny the existence of objective moral truths find it virtually impossible, if not

actually impossible, to live as if there are none. Daily human life often involves value statements

that reflect belief in moral standards: the ‘should’s and ‘shouldn’t’s that influence our social

interactions and behavior. Without moral truths, humans are not obligated to behave in any

certain way. If objective moral truths do not exist, what many label as evil can only be truthfully
4
labeled as unpleasant, painful, or inconvenient but not morally reprehensible. This seems to

3
“Evil”. Merriam-Webster.com
4
Mark Rapinchuk, "Problem of Evil." Lecture, Philosophical Apologetics Course,
College of the Ozarks, (Hollister, MO: December, 2016)

2
contradict human’s deeper, seemingly innate sense that certain events or actions are wrong

because if evil can be reduced to unpleasant, no event or act can be deemed wrong or right, they

just are. Yet, when people define evil, the concept of wrong is almost necessarily attached to it,

suggesting the existence of moral truths.

One of the premises of the axiological argument concludes that if moral truths exist, they

must be objective. These objective moral truths cannot be dependent on a human nature model

(the definition of ‘immoral’ being any violation of human nature) because it is guilty of

speciesism and the model must appeal to other objective models to form value statements (one

should do or not do something) from fact statements (one does or does not do something). Moral

truths also cannot exist by themselves (Atheistic Moral Realism) because they are ideas that must

exist in minds; and, even if they could objectively exist independently, their existence would not

have obligatory power on humans because ideas cannot form value statements, they just are. This

model too must appeal outside of itself to theistic models to turn real moral ideas into value

statements. The axiological argument concludes that if objective moral truths exist, God must

exist as their source. Therefore, to claim that evil has real existence in the world requires

affirming the existence of objective moral truths, which then leads to the conclusion (based on

the axiological argument) that God must exist.

Epicurus’ Question

In addition to the existence of objective moral truths, the problem of evil has been

debated since antiquity in philosophical circles. One famous participant in the debate was

Epicurus (341-270 BCE), who questioned the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent

3
 5
supernatural being (as he was a reductionist) by asking, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not

able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
6
willing? whence then is evil?” This suggests that the existence of God and the existence of evil

are incompatible based on each’s nature and calls into question the Christian understanding of

God’s nature. However, there are assumptions within Epicurus’ question, namely, hedonistic

philosophy.

In Epicureanism, human purpose is pleasure and freedom from pain; specifically, the

“health of the body and freedom from disturbance in the soul are the katastematic pleasures
7
Epicurus claims are the ultimate good.” This philosophy frames the definitions of good and evil

in his question: good (what God offers) is happiness while evil is unhappiness. If God is and

offers only happiness and is all powerful, then God’s existence contradicts the presence of

unhappiness in the world. But Christian doctrine does not place happiness as the purpose or
8
ultimate goal of humanity, rather, to know God. This turns the definition of a good God from

one who offers happiness to one who allows himself to be known, which has no bearing on
9
human emotional state. Theologically, Galatians 5:22 describes joy, peace, and goodness

(equivalent to Epicurus’ ultimate good) as fruit of the Spirit, or byproducts of knowing God, not

the goal of humanity itself. In this case, God’s allowance of human suffering or unhappiness

does not contradict his nature if he allows each person to know him. Christian doctrine affirms

5
David Konstan, “Epicurus”, ​Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​ (2014),
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ (accessed November 24, 2016).
6
Moreland and Craig, 536.
7
Waggle, Larry J., “Epicurus: Psychological or Ethical Hedonist?” ​Revista de Filosofia
57, no. 3 (2007): 82.
8
Moreland and Craig, 544.
9
All Biblical references are from the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible.
4
that God is active in the world and gives every human being opportunities to know Him. Romans

2:15 speaks of God working through the conscious of unbelievers to reveal that His “law is

written on their hearts.” By creating opportunities for us to know Him, God proves Himself

benevolent even if we are temporarily unhappy or in pain.

Warranted vs Unwarranted Evil

However, it is quite easy for us to fall into despair and doubt God’s benevolence when

much of the evil in the world appears to be purposeless. One of the most common questions

those who are struggling with the problem of evil ask is, If God is good, why does he allow bad

things to happen to good people? If purposeless evil does exist, it would seem to contradict

Christian doctrine that God will supply our every need (Phil. 4:19) and give safety to the

righteous (Prov. 18:10). The fact that God’s righteous people suffer in this world, sometimes

more than non-Christians, also seems to starkly contrast with the Bible’s promise that, “those

who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing” (Psa. 34:10b). Although evil may appear to be

meaningless, it is an assumption to claim that it in fact is. Christian doctrine accepts the real
10
existence of evil, not of meaningless evil. If the existence of meaningless evil and God are

contradictory, one must examine which one’s existence is more warranted.

Each must be taken in its full context of background information, outside of the argument

that they are contradictory, to determine which has evidence with more explanatory power and is

therefore more probable. In defending the existence of purposeless evil, phenomenological

examples serve as the primary, if not only, support. Dennis Earl, Ph.D., a philosophy and

religious studies professor at Costal Carolina University, supported the existence of “horrendous

10
Moreland and Craig, 548.
5
evil”, a veiled term for gratuitous evil, by arguing that those who suffer cannot benefit if the

sufferer is not aware of “how their experience t into the production of more global goods,
11
especially for the most apparently pointless cases of suffering.” Essentially, evil is meaningless

if God does not use it to benefit the sufferer in a way that he understands, which are most of the

phenomenological cases of suffering. But God’s actions do not depend on human awareness of

those actions; an evil act or event has godly purpose if God uses it for the furthering of His

teleological plan for good, not if the sufferer is aware of God’s use. This puts no limitations on

when, where, or how God uses evil for the furthering of good. Even if God actualizes the good

potential of an evil event after the sufferer’s lifetime and on the opposite side of the earth, that

evil has warrant in God’s plan. Earl’s view also reduces God’s teleological plans and interactions

with humanity to an individual level when the Bible suggests that God primarily works with and

for humanity as a collective to know and glorify Him in which the individual plays a role in a
12
greater plan.

Comparatively, while support for the existence of meaningless evil must always depend

on phenomenological experience and attach the word “seems,” as Earl does throughout his essay,

the existence of God has numerous logical supports, including the cosmological argument for a

creator of the universe, the teleological argument for

an intelligent designer of the cosmos, the axiological argument for an ultimate, personally

embodied Good, the ontological argument for a maximally great being, as well as

11
Dennis Earl, “Divine intimacy and the Problem of Horrendous Evil,” ​International
Journal for Philosophy of Religion​ 69, no. 1 (2011): 20
12
See section on Teleological Plan for Creation: Big Picture.
6
 evidence concerning the person of Christ, the historicity of the resurrection, the existence
13
of miracles and, in addition, existential and religious experience.

The evidence for God’s existence certainly covers more relevant areas and carries more weight

than arguments for the reality of what appears to be meaningless evil. Because the existence of

God is more evidentially supported than that of unwarranted evil, it is more probable that God

exists and unwarranted evil does not. This implies that all evil serves some purpose in promoting

God’s good toward humans. Although, the sufferer is often unaware of God’s employment of

evil in His plan for good, that good ultimately benefits the individual, especially when

considering that humans are eternal beings and will experience the fulfillment of God’s plan after

this earthly life (as Christian doctrine holds). The existence of evil is warranted if God has

morally sufficient reasons for allowing it.

Teleological Plan for Creation

Big Picture

Concerning Christian identity, the Bible makes it clear that the Church, not the

individual, is the main recipient of God’s blessing. 1 Corinthians 12:7 states that God gives

spiritual gifts to individuals not for the individual’s ultimate benefit, but for the benefit of the

“common good,” or the church (the collective body of Christians who support one another in

Christ). 1 Peter 2:5 describes the temple for acceptable spiritual sacrifices to God not as an

individual Christian, but as many joining together in a “holy priesthood.” Revelation 21:9-10

depicts the bride of Christ as a grand city of His people. The Bible has a clear emphasis that

Christian community is more complete and good than a lone Christian. We now return to Earl’s

13
Moreland and Craig, 542.
7
argument that for God’s plans to be good for us, the individual must directly benefit from and

know God’s utilization of evil for good in his life. But if community is a better good than the

individual, then God’s good plans for the community as a whole (the Church) would benefit the

individual more than if God had solely benefited him. As a character in a grander scheme and

story plot, the Christian should be aware that every scene of his life points toward an ultimate

climax or end. Regardless of what the character feels or experiences in the scenes, the ending of

the story determines the character’s meaning and either validates or nullifies his experiences in

the previous scenes. Therefore, the Christian that experiences horrendous evil in this life will

ultimately receive justice when God judges humanity and Christ returns. In that moment, no

experience of unjust evil will have been gratuitous or experienced in vain.

We as Christians can take comfort in knowing that God is a perfect parent to us, and like

a good human parenting model, God allows His children to make their own decisions and

experience the consequences for them. A good parent does not control his child, but lets him

learn from his choices while at the same time providing safety; the child can make decisions

within set limitations to protect the child from serious harm but still allow him to learn and grow.

The presence of evil in the world is real, but it must be taken comparatively to both the good God

offers presently and the ultimate consequences. Our Father allows His children (collective

humanity) to experience the negative consequences of sin, but He provides safety and support

through it to those that turn to Him. All the while He knows that in the end, His children that did

turn to Him will have gained greater understanding of His character, greater appreciation for

Him and His world, and greater faith after having it tested. The end result of the individual after

God allows him to struggle with evil and faith is far better than the individual before any trials

8
because at the end he knows God more. If human purpose is to know God, then we are more

fulfilled in our purpose after grappling with evil than without it. God deems this eternally lasting

end worth the price of his children temporarily experiencing evil.

Human Worth

Not only do humans gain fulfillment of purpose and greater understanding from

confronting evil in this world, but the level of consequence for sin reveals how much we are

worth to God. More serious violations require more serious consequences, and humanity’s

violation is not only against God, but also against its own designed ideal. That ideal humanity

(and ideal individual) is so valuable that violating it requires dramatic consequences. If humanity

was worth less, the consequences would be lesser. The presence of evil is connected to our
14
responsibility to live according to God’s ideal for humanity. Evil may be undeserved on an

individual level, but as a member of humanity sharing the same worth, each individual

experiences the collective consequences of such an extreme violation as walking away from God

and our own purpose.

This situation also reveals the incredible responsibility that humans possess in God’s plan

and design. Humanity is intrinsically worth more if its individuals are responsible beings and

affect more than just themselves because their range of influence is greater. Humans are also

worth more if they possess free will and autonomous thoughts and behavior. When these two

aspects are combined, humanity gains deep, meaningful value and influence. The responsibilities

that God has given humans are linked to participation in His plans, which also increases human

14
David DeSilva. 2013. “The human ideal, the problem of evil, and moral responsibility
in 4 Maccabees.” Bulletin for Biblical 23, no. 1 (2013): 64

9
value because a participant is more valuable than an observer. The positive consequences of

freely choosing to live in accordance with God’s intended design are immeasurably great; our

purpose and worth are founded in what God intended humanity to be. However, the negative

consequence must be equal in strength to the corresponding positive consequence because God is

just. We cannot expect all the benefits that proceed when we choose to follow God (individually

and collectively) while demanding that we do not experience the severe punishment of rejecting

Him. The agitated response that it seems many post-moderns have to this ultimatum is that

humans did not freely chose to be a part of this binding “deal” with God and should therefore not

be held to such an ultimatum. But such a position is that of God, and although humans have free

will over their own responses, they are not in a place to freely choose their environmental

limitations or the standards they are held to. Returning to the parenting model, a child may

complain that his parent is being unfair or cruel by holding him accountable to a standard of

respect or work ethic, but the child is not in a position to choose his parent (or lack of) or rewrite

his parent’s standards. One obvious result of rejecting that a parent even exists in order to unbind

the child from his responsibilities is that if his parent did not exist, he would not. The question

for humanity that follows is, Is it better to exist with positive and negative consequences or to not

exist at all? Apparently, God deemed the first better and has proven throughout history that He is

quite fond of humanity.

God has mercifully given humans the opportunity to ‘test out’ both the positive and

negative consequences in this life and freely decide whether to actively participate in God’s

plans for His creation or not. This test period is limited and a decision is made in the end that

will either result in full and permanent negative consequence (evil, which in a Biblical sense

10
comes from separation from God) or full and permanent positive consequence (completed worth,

influence, and participation in God’s plans according to His design for humanity). As horrendous

as the evil in the world legitimately is, it currently coexists with an equal or greater force of good

(because God is merciful and powerful) that can be experienced by seeking God and living in

obedience to Him, an offer that is open to us at all times in this life. The evil in the world pales in

comparison to ultimate separation from God and the good He allows us to experience in part

even now. At the same time, the good that humans experience in this life also pales in

comparison to the perfect goodness those who choose to follow God will ultimately experience.

God has deemed the potential for both high human value and high human experience of His

goodness worth the corresponding consequences of their violating His plan.

God has decided that His children are worth the incredible lengths He has gone to bring

His children back to Him, even if many of them ultimately reject Him. He has been subjected to

the same evil all of humanity has had to face because He chooses to actively participate in our

world. Yet He is willingly subjected to horrendous evil because He values and desires unity with

His children and desires for us to view Him in the same way, enduring evil in this world while

longing for the fulfilment of God’s promised perfect good.

Conclusion

One of the most difficult logical and emotional struggles that humans must confront in

this life is the presence of real, seemingly meaningless evil. The reality of evil can significantly

influence one to doubt the existence of an all good, all powerful God (Christianity), concluding

that the two cannot be compatible. An underlying premise of the problem of evil is that there

must be objective moral truths to be acted contrary to in order for there to be real evil. If there

11
are not objective moral truths, evil is simply reduced to unpleasantness. The fact that humans

seem to have a strong innate sense of certain actions or events being wrong and therefore evil

points to there being objective moral truths, which in turn points to the existence of God (by way

of the axiological argument). In rectifying the apparent contradiction between God’s being

omnibenevolent and omnipotent, we must realize that God’s goodness to His children is not

equivalent to happiness. Instead, human purpose and the goodness that God offers is knowing

Him. Regardless of where we are emotionally, God allows us to experience His goodness by

making Himself known to us. Therefore, we can endure terrible evils while also knowing God

and the goodness of His character and plans for us. However, the seeming meaninglessness of

much evil can cause us to question God’s character. But just because one is not aware of God’s

utilization of each evil instance in His plans for good does not mean He does not use them. Even

if God uses an evil instance to bring about a positive outcome after the sufferer’s lifetime, God

has still used that evil and therefore has not left it meaningless. His reasons for allowing evil in

the world are sufficient because the end result, perfect goodness for those that choose to be His

children, is worth the present temporary experience. And not only does He deem the ultimate end

for humanity worth the subjection to evil, but also the end individual having a deeper

understanding of Him and His character. Finally, the fact that humans have the responsibility to

live in accordance with God’s design for humanity and are subject to the consequences for not

doing so is not a cruel ultimatum, but a sign of their value. Possessing responsibility, being held

to standards, and being participants in God’s plan of good increase the value of humanity while

removing these from humanity’s design would decrease its value.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

DeSilva, David A. 2013. “The human ideal, the problem of evil, and moral responsibility in 4

Maccabees.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, 23, no. 1 (2013): 57-77.

Earl, Dennis. 2011. “Divine intimacy and the Problem of Horrendous Evil.” ​International

Journal for Philosophy of Religion,​ 69, no. 1 (2011): 17-28.

“Evil.” ​Merriam-Webster.com.​ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

Konstan, David. 2014. “Epicurus.” ​Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ (accessed November 24, 2016).

Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. 2003. ​Philosophical Foundations for a Christian

Worldview​. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Rapinchuk, Mark. "Problem of Evil” Lecture, Philosophical Apologetics Course, College of the

Ozarks, Hollister, MO: December, 2016.

13