The Problem of Evil: Part 1

The holocaust, abortion, nuclear war, genocide, hunger, rape: all of these things are examples of evil in our world today. Many, in such circumstances, will turn to God as a result, yet in our world many would cite evil as argument against God, reasoning that the existence of evil, the quantity, or something else about it disproves the existence of God.

It is my contention in this note to demonstrate otherwise: that evil in no way argues against God's existence.

First, let me set forth the terms: an atheist arguing in this manner will have the burden of proof since he (or she) is on the offensive.

Second, let me lay forth the set of beliefs that a theist must subscribe to in order to remain orthodox.

1) God exists
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnipotent
4) God is wholly good--morally perfect
5) God is the creator and sustainer of the world
6) Evil exists

There are two arguments from evil that attack this set of beliefs: an inductive argument and a deductive argument. Both attack directly premise 7:

7) God has a good and sufficient reason for allowing evil into the world.

In the next two sections I will be laying forth these arguments and refuting them.

The Deductive argument

1. It is impossible that God exist if there is evil in the world
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

On the contrary: the problem with this argument is that premise 1 denies that God could have any good reason for allowing evil into the world. Proposition 7 in my list has been outright denied. While this is not a fallacy, it is impossible to prove, since no one, atheist or theist, can know every possible reason why God might allow evil into the world.

Thus, the atheist, since he has the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is no possible reason that God would allow evil into the world, is caught in a web of his own weaving.

The Inductive Argument

1. It is improbable that God exist if there is evil in the world
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

On the contrary: Here again, proposition 7 has been denied, this time on a probabilistic basis. The burden for the atheist here is now not to know all possible reasons, but to know enough reasons to justify a denial of the proposition.

However, this too is impossible since we as humans do not know how many possible reasons there are why God might allow evil into the world. Therefore we cannot know how many of those would constitute sufficient evidence to justify a denial of proposition 7.

Here again, the atheist has been caught in a quandary.

To be continued.....