<p style="text-align: center"><strong>If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. Evil exists. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not.</strong></p>
This logically valid deductive argument presents a conundrum for theists and is often--understandably--used as an argument by atheists against the existence of God. Epicurus, one of the earliest philosophers known to have raised what is known as the Problem of Evil, has this to say: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”<strong><span style="color: #ff0000"><sup>2</sup></span></strong> It is a weighty question, indeed; if god exists, why does he allow evil in the world? He does so because the ability of humans to freely choose between right and wrong trumps the dissolution of moral evil and secondly, becaue natural evil is necessary for the value of free will.

For the purposes of clarity, we must offer up the following definitions:
<strong>“God”</strong> will be in reference to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God (i.e. omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.)
<strong>“Moral evil”</strong> is evil or suffering that results from the immoral choices of free creatures.
<strong>“Natural evil”</strong> is suffering that results from the functions of nature or nature gone wrong (e.g. famine, natural disasters, cancer, etc.)

If God is perfectly good, then he would want the greatest good for humankind. The greater good is not the lack of evil in the world, but rather moral free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga offers this response:
<blockquote>“God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.” <span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><sup>1</sup></strong></span></blockquote>
A counter to this defense is that free will could still exist, but without the choice for moral evil. Indeed, humans could be created to only make good moral choices—simply choosing between alternative actions, both of them good. But in such a “toy world”,<span style="color: #ff0000"><sup>4</sup></span> free will has no real value. Richard Swineburg, a professor at the University of Oxford, says that “free and responsible choice is free will to make significant choices between good and evil, which make a big difference to the agent, to others, and to the world.” <span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><sup>3</sup></strong></span>

The only way to remove moral evil is to quantify all acts as being good because any reduction in that good would be a form of moral evil. Humans make choices based on the varying moral values of said choices and if all things are of equal good, then there would be no value. Free will is the ability of humans to make choices of moral value, not just simply deciding between two alternative actions. If God takes away the value of those choices, then “free will” is rendered valueless.

However, even if a perfectly good God is justified in allowing moral evil to exist, the existence of natural evil remains to be explained. There are two reasons for natural evil.

1) To make it possible for humans to exercise their free will.

2) To make available especially worthwhile choices for humans.

Swineburg suggests that there are two ways in which natural evil operates to give humans these worthwhile choices. The first is that the operation of natural laws producing evils gives humans knowledge of how to bring about such evils themselves. It could be argued that this knowledge could be given to us by God without the need for suffering. Of course this is possible, but if we were directly informed of the consequences of our actions, it would eliminate the need—and the will—for seeking out knowledge ourselves. We would no longer desire to discover the consequences ourselves through research or experimentation. Because of this pre-existing knowledge, our free-will would be limited because we would know the right choice and be inclined to make it. It is only through natural process that humans obtain knowledge to the effects of their actions without inhibiting their freedom.

The second way that natural evil operates to give humans choices is to make possible certain kinds of choices; it increases the range of significant choice. As previously stated, humans make choices based on the varying moral values of said choices and if all things are of equal good, then there would be no value. Likewise, if there is more variance in the level of goodness of the choices, so there is more value in the choices made. Swineburg gives the following example of this:
<blockquote>“A particular natural evil, such as pain, gives the sufferer a choice—whether to endure it with patience or to bemoan is his lot. His friend can choose whether to show compassion towards the sufferer, or to be callous. The pain makes possible these choices, which would not otherwise exist.” <span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><sup>3 </sup></strong></span></blockquote>
But these opportunities for good choices could become available through the actions of moral evil without the need for suffering caused by natural processes. A soldier who saves his comrade in the midst of battle is no more brave than the man who risks his life to save a child from drowning in river rapids. This is true. However, there is so much suffering of mind and body caused by disease, earthquake and accidents unpreventable by humans, that many people would not be afforded much of a chance to make good moral choices.<span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><sup>3  </sup></strong></span>They would be unable to manifest much in the way of goodness at all. Humans need these sinister natural processes in order to be given opportunities they would not otherwise have. It is necessary for the value of our free will.

Despite these explanations for evil in the world, this fact remains: evil is still evil and it is the causal factor of great suffering in the world. However, the existance of evil by no means negates the existance of God. Without this evil, we would be left without free will; we would be no more than mindless robots. Without great evil, there could be no great good.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<sup>1) Beebe, James R. "Logical Problem of Evil." <em>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em>. University of Tennessee at Martin. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.
2) Haught, James A. <em>2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt</em>. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1996. Print.
3) Swineburg, Richard. "Why God Allows Evil." <em>Exploring Philosophy: an Introductory Anthology</em>. By Steven M. Cahn. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 191-202. Print.
4) "The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." <em>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em>. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.</sup>

<em>Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/diloz/5038789369/">Azlan Dupree</a></em>