Logical Problem of Evil

[Tree of Life]

The logical problem of evil doesn't work.

It seeks to demonstrate that the idea of God and the idea of evil are mutually exclusive. God and evil cannot logically coexist. The traditional version goes something like this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

This argument is valid but not sound. Christians would deny premise (1), or at least we would say that premise (1) is unproven. The atheist must prove that an all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist. This is something that is very hard to do. How do we know that God does not have some good reason to allow evil to exist? Perhaps the existence of evil brings about some greater good which justifies it.

So the argument has been modified to look more like this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist unless he had some morally sufficient reason.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

The problem with this modification is that it is no longer valid. Conclusion (3) does not follow from premises (1) and (2) unless the atheist can prove that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist. This is even more difficult to demonstrate than proving premise (1) in the traditional form of the argument.

So the logical problem of evil is not a logical problem at all and does not give us a good reason to reject belief in God.

 

[Not David]

There is not "evil" in nature, just things that happens as part of nature. So evil would be consider a construct for humans; however; nobody will say that because for some reason humans know evil really exists.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is not "evil" in nature, just things that happens as part of nature. So evil would be consider a construct for humans; however; nobody will say that because for some reason humans know evil really exists.

If you're saying that without God there can be no coherent concept of evil then I agree. The problem of evil also has this weakness - it depends on a notion of evil that itself assumes God's existence. So the problem of evil has to assume God's existence in order to argue against God's existence.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If you're saying that without God there can be no coherent concept of evil then I agree. The problem of evil also has this weakness - it depends on a notion of evil that itself assumes God's existence. So the problem of evil has to assume God's existence in order to argue against God's existence.

The argument becomes this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist unless he had some morally sufficient reason.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore I do not like any concept of an all good and all powerful God.

Which is kind of like this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow green beans to exist.
2. green beans exist.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

I must confess this comes out of my distaste for green beans, I resist all invitations to eat them, and will not allow them to exist in my stomach, to me it is as though they do not exist, unfortunately though, my wife loves them!

You beat me to point out how the moral nature of the argument (evil exists) must assume the antithesis of evil, God's attribute of Holiness, in order to make the argument. Just imagine if God suddenly removed all evil, would anyone be left?

Reminds me of this song from years ago.

 

[juvenissun]

The logical problem of evil doesn't work.

It seeks to demonstrate that the idea of God and the idea of evil are mutually exclusive. God and evil cannot logically coexist. The traditional version goes something like this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

This argument is valid but not sound. Christians would deny premise (1), or at least we would say that premise (1) is unproven. The atheist must prove that an all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist. This is something that is very hard to do. How do we know that God does not have some good reason to allow evil to exist? Perhaps the existence of evil brings about some greater good which justifies it.

So the argument has been modified to look more like this:

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist unless he had some morally sufficient reason.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

The problem with this modification is that it is no longer valid. Conclusion (3) does not follow from premises (1) and (2) unless the atheist can prove that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist. This is even more difficult to demonstrate than proving premise (1) in the traditional form of the argument.

So the logical problem of evil is not a logical problem at all and does not give us a good reason to reject belief in God.

Before any logic is given, the first thing is to define evil. You can not use undefined term in logic argument.

What is evil?

 

[gaara4158]

I agree that it’s not a strong argument, but it doesn’t need to accept the actual existence of evil to proceed. It can take the Bible’s definition of evil, find examples of it in the world, and show how they are mutually incompatible with God’s all-(biblically-defined)goodness without accepting the existence of any metaphysical standard of good and evil in the real world. Arguments like this are fairly simple to escape given God’s unfathomable nature, so the problem of evil is not a logical defeater for the existence of God.

 

[durangodawood]

If you're saying that without God there can be no coherent concept of evil then I agree. The problem of evil also has this weakness - it depends on a notion of evil that itself assumes God's existence. So the problem of evil has to assume God's existence in order to argue against God's existence.

Are you saying "evil" is some sort of supernatural force?

 

[Petros2015]

1. An all good and all powerful God would not allow evil to exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore an all good and all powerful God does not exist.

Does the all good and all powerful God allow evil to exist indefinitely? I don't think He does.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you saying "evil" is some sort of supernatural force?

No. Evil is a concept that is not really coherent if God does not exist.

 

[Tree of Life]

Does the all good and all powerful God allow evil to exist indefinitely? I don't think He does.

The God of the Bible does not allow evil to exist indefinitely.

 

[durangodawood]

No. Evil is a concept that is not really coherent if God does not exist.

So what is "evil" for the purpose of the problem-of-evil argument?

If its something like "wickedness in the sight of God", then of course God is needed for that to make sense. But thats not very interesting.

 

[Tree of Life]

So what is "evil" for the purpose of the problem-of-evil argument?

If its something like "wickedness in the sight of God", then of course God is needed for that to make sense. But thats not very interesting.

That would be up to the atheist to define his own terms. The atheist says that evil exists. But I believe that the atheist has a problem here. He will not be able to find any compelling definition of evil that actually creates a problem without first presupposing God's existence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps the existence of evil brings about some greater good which justifies it.

How does "The ends justify the means" jive with the argument from objective morality?

 

[ananda]

There is nothing inherently "good" nor "evil" - we just interpret events and things in those ways, in our own minds.

 

[Tree of Life]

How does "The ends justify the means" jive with the argument from objective morality?

To provide an analogy - Parents may subject their child to painful medical treatment which seems very evil from the perspective of the child. But the child does not understand that there is a greater end in view - saving the child's life - which justifies the apparent evil.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is nothing "good" nor "evil" - we just interpret things in those ways, in our own minds.

Then there is no problem of evil for you.

 

[ananda]

Then there is no problem of evil for you.

True!

 

[durangodawood]

That would be up to the atheist to define his own terms. The atheist says that evil exists. But I believe that the atheist has a problem here. He will not be able to find any compelling definition of evil that actually creates a problem without first presupposing God's existence.

I dont think so.

The atheist is simply showing internal contradictions within the theology, using the terms of theology, like God is "all-good", and so on. Now if theology operates without definitions for terms it uses, like "good" and "evil", then theology itself is incoherent.

No one has to assent to the reality of these things in order to point out the internal contradictions.

 

[Tree of Life]

I dont think so.

The atheist is simply showing internal contradictions within the theology, using the terms of theology, like God is "all-good", and so on. Now if theology operates without definitions for terms it uses, like "good" and "evil", then theology itself is incoherent.

No one has to assent to the reality of these things in order to point out the internal contradictions.

That would be fine. Maybe the atheist doesn't believe in evil but thinks that Christianity is internally incoherent because of the Christian concept of God and the Christian concept of evil. But even then, as the OP demonstrates, the argument doesn't work.

 

[durangodawood]

That would be fine. Maybe the atheist doesn't believe in evil but thinks that Christianity is internally incoherent because of the Christian concept of God and the Christian concept of evil. But even then, as the OP demonstrates, the argument doesn't work.

Before we can say the argument doesnt work, I'd need to know what "evil" means for the purpose of the argument.

What theological notion of evil is our atheist drawing upon when she deploys this argument?