Problem of Evil (Pain and Suffering):

The problem of evil refers to the pain and suffering abundantly evident in our world. From the murder of the innocent
child to natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, the problem of evil addresses how viable it is to conclude that
God exists in light of the acts of pain and suffering.

In order to address this issue properly an important distinction is required. There are two general issues to the problem
of evil: the emotional problem of evil and the intellectual problem of evil (Figure 1). The emotional problem of evil concerns
how we and others deal with the results of evil in this world. Great care and compassion are needed during times of struggle.
However, the goal of this article is the intellectual problem of evil. Therefore, while various issues will be discussed the goal
is to deal with the facts of the matter and not the emotional side, although with all due respect to those who suffer.

We want to think through this issue without coming across as cold or uncaring. That is why some call the first issue the
pastoral problem of evil.¹ The intellectual problem of evil (our focus) addresses the compatibility between God and evil
(pain and suffer) experienced by everyone though often with different degrees of suffering. Specifically, the claim to be
addressed is that God and evil cannot coexist. As figure one indicates there are two main areas to the intellectual problem
of evil: the internal problem of evil (IPE) and the external problem of evil (EPE). Let's look at each in order.

Figure 1²

The internal problem of evil:
The internal problem of evil brings the challenge that God and evil cannot logically coexist. In other words, there is a logical
incompatibility in saying that both God and evil exist. This can be further broken down into two areas: the logical problem
of evil and the probabilistic problem of evil (see Figure 1). The logical problem of evil targets the rational of saying that
both God and evil exist while the probabilistic problem of evil claims that, on the whole, the evidence from evil would lead
one to believe that God probably does not exist. Let us look at each of these in order.

The logical problem of evil: God and evil are logically incompatible.
The logical problem of evil is based on the claim that God and evil cannot both exist. Either God exists or evil exists but it
is illogical to claim that both God and evil exist. It can be stated as follows:

1. If evil exists, then God does not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

While this is a very popular argument there is an assumption being made within this argument, namely, that both evil and
God cannot coexist. Theist Alvin Plantinga points out that this assumption does not seem valid. What makes the existence
of evil and the existence of God incompatible? There is no logical contradiction to say that God exists and evil exists.
Thus, the atheist must modify her argument. One common attempt to show that God and evil cannot both exist, and
therefore amounts to a logical contradiction, is to provide an argument similar to the following one.

1’ If an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God exists, then evil would not exist.

a. If God is omniscient, He would know that evil would come about and refrain from creating such a world.
b. If God is benevolent, He would want to keep evil out of the world.
c. If God is omnipotent, He would be able to keep evil from existing.

2’ Evil does exist.
3’ Therefore God does not exist.

This argument states: If God is omniscient (all-knowing), benevolent (all-loving), and omnipotent (all-powerful), then evil
would not exist. The reasons would be as follows: If God is omniscient, He would know that evil would come about and refrain
from creating such a world. If God is benevolent, He would want to keep evil from coming about and therefore prevent it. If
God is omnipotent, He would be able to keep evil from coming about. Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent,
benevolent God does not exist.

Premise 1 is not as intuitively true as the atheist believes. According to 1'a, an omniscient God would know that evil would
come about and therefore not create such a world. But is this necessarily true? Why would God necessarily refrain from
creating a world with evil? The answer would have to be tied to something else not found in premise 1'a. Usually something
along the lines of premise 1'b is given, because He is loving (or good). Certainly a loving God would want to prevent evil,
especially if He knows about evil (1'a) and has the ability to prevent it (1'c). This sounds very good, at first. However, a
rather one-sided understanding of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence is being assumed. For instance,
is it possible that God has some good reason(s) as to why He would allow evil to exist that are unknown to us at this time?
This does seem like a logical possibility (remember, the point of the argument is just this issue, namely, that God and evil
cannot logically coexist). Hence, if it is logically possible for God to have a reason(s), even if unknown to us, for allowing
evil, then it follows that God and evil are not logically inconsistent. Therefore, the charge that the existence of God and evil
are logically incompatible fails.

One possible reason theists can give to show why God would allow evil is called the free-will defense. It is logically possible
for God to create a perfect universe in which He allows His creation to choose to follow Him. If, however, people choose
not to follow Him, then evil could result from this poor choice. The reason God would allow free choice is because He would
not want to create robots but beings that would be able to have a relationship with Him. Now this option does bring up a
variety of other issues (why such harsh results for choosing poorly, why not refrain from creating the universe, etc.) but
these miss the point. That is, it is logically possible for God and evil to exist. The challenge being considered is that God
and evil cannot logically coexist. However, this challenge fails since 1) God does not necessarily have to create a world
without evil and 2) free-will is a logical possibility as to why God could allow evil to exist.

Many atheists miss the significance of this reply. Since their claim is that God and evil cannot logically coexist then
there must not be a single logical exception. However, since there is a logical acception the claim fails. Another reason
must be given to show why God and evil cannot coexist. Enter the evidential problem of evil.

The evidential problem of evil: in light of evil God's existence is unlikely
Even if the logical problem of evil is rendered ineffective, the amount of evil in the world must still be addressed. The
evidential problem of evil states roughly that the amount of evil in the world renders the probability of a loving, powerful,
all-knowing God unlikely. Since there is so much pain and suffering certainly a loving, powerful, all-knowing God would do
more about the evil in the world. Since He has not done much, or enough (if anything at all), about the pain and suffering
in the world, then it follows that He probably does not exist.

One of the problems with establishing the amount of evil is how to measure it. How do we go about measuring the amount of
evil in the world? This seems an impossible task. And, if we do come up with a measure for the amount of evil in the world,
then it seems that we need to be able to say how much evil should be in the world. But what is our basis for saying that
“such and such” amount of evil is acceptable? And why is this amount acceptable? Why, it follows, would any amount of evil
be acceptable? Yet the issue regarding God being justified to allow any evil at all has already been dealt with in the previous
argument.

An atheist may claim that it is not necessary to quantify (measure) the amount of evil for this argument to succeed. Rather,
the atheist need only show that God should have prevented some evil (even 1%). Certainly God could have lowered the
amount of evil in the world and since He has not prevented even 1% of the evil that we see/experience in the world,
it follows that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God probably does not exist.

Such a claim is not as easily maintained as it may first appear. For instance, if God were to prevent 1% of the evil in the
world, how would we know it? What would that world look like? If God did prevent 1% of the evil in the world it seems that
world would look a lot like the present one and, most significantly, the atheist would not be able to know this. Additionally,
if 1% of the evil had been prevented such a world would likely not satisfy the atheist demands in the first place. Therefore,
the atheist would still be making this same claim even though God had prevented the 1% of evil that was required.

More importantly, who is to say that God (assuming He does exist) hasn’t already prevented more than 1% of the evil in the
world. Who is to say that God has not prevented 50% more evil than we already do see and thereby shown that He is
omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent as the atheist demands. In other words, maybe the atheist’s demand has already
been met and she does not even know it!

Take WWII as an example. If the atheist were to claim that God would be vindicated if WWII had been prevented a real
problem arises. How would the atheist, or anyone else other than God, know this? It seems that we would not know that
WWII had been prevented and the atheist would complain that something else, for example WWI, ought to have been
prevented to vindicate God. Yet, if both WWI and WWII were prevented we would, once again, not know and the atheist
would appeal to something else (say the black plague or AIDS). This could continue until only a scratch or hangnail was
left as a basis for claiming that the amount of evil proved that God probably does not exist. Yet all along the requirement
established by the atheist was met. Such is the problem of the logic regarding this challenge.

An additional issue often overlooked is the good found in the world. If pain and suffering show God does not exist, then
the goodness in the world (altruism, love of family, being neighborly, helping victims, etc.) ought to count for the existence
of a good God. The outpouring of generosity for the 2010 earthquake victims in Haiti is a case in point (at least the
generousity by many Western nations with historic Christian influence). Many people took time off from work to help with
relief efforts, gave generously (even during a ecomonic slump), and provided other support. This needs to count in favor
of God working through people. What is more, many times the pain and suffering incurred can bring about a goodness that
would not otherwise be there. There are many testimonies regarding lives changed only after one has endured hardship,
pain, suffering, etc. That is the nature of a stubborn heart. So the evil endured in the world is often a catalyst for untold
goodness, which is what one might expect if a loving, omniscience, and omnipotent God exists.

While the evidential problem of evil is not easily sustained by the atheist a bigger problem arises: this argument does
not provide support for atheism. More than anything the amount of evil in the world shows that we do not understand the
presence of evil but this is more of a reflection of our ignorance than anything else. It is important to remember that our lack
of understanding is not proof that God does not exist; our lack of understanding simply shows that we are not fully
informed. Thus, our lack of understanding does not disprove God’s existence. Rather, our lack of understanding
reveals limited knowledge. Such a humbling distinction is important so as to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions
based upon insufficient data.

External Problem of Evil:
If neither the logical problem of evil nor the probabilistic problem of evil can be effectively used to disprove the existence of
God, then certainly gratuitous evil counts against God existing. Gratuitous evil refers to what appears to be useless acts of
pain and suffering. There are many evil acts in the world that do not seem to play any positive role. Even if it is granted that
God is able to bring good out of such acts as mass murder, the torture of the innocent, terrorism, etc. certainly
there is no accounting for such meaningless acts of evil as the little girl innocently playing dolls at the top of the stairs
who loses her balance, falls down the stairs and breaks her neck. Or consider the little boy walking along a hill side that
gives way and crushes him to death. Such useless acts of evil seem directly contradictory to a loving, knowledgeable,
powerful God.

This argument can be summarized as follows:

1. If God exists then gratuitous evil does not exist.
2. Gratuitous evil exists.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

As Dr. William Lane Craig points out, premise two is not necessarily true.³ While it is true is that there is evil in the world
which appears pointless it does not follow that such evil is pointless. For instance, it is possible that the cases considered
gratuitous could be allowed for some morally acceptable reasons that are unknown to us. Given this, gratuitous evil does
not disprove theism. Rather, what is revealed is our limited understanding of the issues surrounding the events.

If this is true then we are not in a position to say that evil is gratuitous because we would have to know every possible reason
for evil to exist and eliminate them all. But in order to do this we would have to be omniscient, or nearly so. Thus the theist
can reason:

1' If God exists then gratuitous evil does not exist.
2` God exists.
3` Therefore gratuitous evil does not exist.

Since the Christian is not committed to life being limited to this physical world, the answer to what appears to be gratuitous
evil may be found in relation to God and the afterlife (or, at minimum, the answer would be discovered there). As Craig points
out, it must be remembered that the Christian worldview includes an account of life after and beyond this world. There
are at least four such doctrines within the Christian worldview that need to be kept in mind. Here are three similar to those
he points out.

First, the chief purpose of humankind is not happiness (as thought of today) but to glorify God through a loving relationship.
It is this loving relationship that brings God glory. The focus is His glory and not simply our temporary happiness.

Second, humankind is in rebellion to God. Therefore, all types of evil are a natural result.

And third, God’s purposes for our existence include but are not limited to this world. Therefore, it is conceivable, on this
account, that He has a purpose for things in this world that will only make sense later. Thus the debate over gratuitous evil
ends up being determined by the existence of God, and not vice versa.