Introduction
Every day we hear about evil in the world whether it is some random act of violence or some
form of injustice. We watch the news, read various articles, and turn to social media and can't help but
to see the horrors that seem to be prevailing, from wars to school shootings, it seems as though Satan is
running free. The people of evil is real and tangible. It is something that is felt by every member of
society and in fact all of mankind. “Many argue that not only is there little reason to suppose that the
god of classical monotheism exists, the sheer quantity of evil that exists provides us with overwhelming
empirical evidence that he doesn't. Those theists who maintain that belief in God, if not proved, is at
least not unreasonable, are mistaken. Far from being a question reason cannot decide, the claim that the
god of classical monotheism exists seems to be straightforwardly empirically falsified."1 The problem of
evil is a major criticism faced by Christians by those who use it as a talking point for their belief that God
does not exist.
The city of New Orleans was devastated by a hurricane in August of 2005 causing the deaths of
over. Other, recent events such as the wildfires in Hawaii or the continued famine and drought in Eastern
Africa The devastation and loss associated with these events are tragic and felt among people around
the world. Pain more specifically suffering is oppressively felt through natural disasters, terrorism, and a
host of other things is one people must confront. For non-Christians, and even non-Christians, it is
difficult to conceptualize and many ask themselves what is the cause of this, how can we live in a world
where we see such horror and disaster? How can there be a just, loving, powerful, and good God, while
at the same time, so much evil persists in the world and throughout the history of humanity? Why do
good people suffer? Why are there natural disasters, and so many lives are destroyed? Why do they
occur at all? These are all important questions posed to the idea of us theodicy According to Daryl Ooi,
1 Stephen Law The Evil-God Challenge Religious Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 353
“It is one thing to claim that moral evil is justified as the inevitable consequence of human beings being
free and responsible; it is quite another to suggest to a person who has been raped that the suffering
involved in that experience is in some way balanced out by God’s gift of free will to human beings. The
failure of the practice of theodicy in connecting with the practical realities of evil seems to leave the
theodicist vulnerable to the charge of moral insensitivity.”2 Yet, most believers know and understand it is
due to sin, but the question becomes how is there a problem with evil if an omnipotent, omniscient, and
all-good god exists?
What is evil?
“By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow,” Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his brother's
words, “told me about the crimes committed by Turks and Circassians in all parts of Bulgaria
through fear of a general rising of the Slavs. They burn villages, murder, outrage women and
children, they nail their prisoners by the ears to the fences, leave them so till morning, and in the
morning they hang them—all sorts of things you can't imagine. People talk sometimes of bestial
cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a
man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never
think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in
torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother's womb, and tossing babies up in
the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it
before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I
thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of
invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh.
They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's
face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in
the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond
of sweet things, they say”3
Very few things compare to the savagery and evil or war. We have come to realize there are two
types of evil that exist. Evil is either a natural or a moral evil. According to Stephen Law, “Moral evils are
the morally bad things that we do as free moral agents (we start wars, steal, murder each other, and so
on). Natural evils are the natural diseases and disasters that cause suffering.”4 In defining evil this is
2 Ooi, Daryl. “Theodicy on Trial.” Philosophia. 50, no. 4 (2022): p.2018.
3 Fyodor, Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York, New York Random
House, 1933 p245-246
4 Law, Stephen “Introduction to the Evil God Challenge.” Think 18, no. 51: 5–9. (2019) accessed November
8, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1477175618000301.
something people experience in their life, and can often be hard to grasp. people continue to seek
answers of why evil is in the world. Most religions don’t attempt to tackle the issues of evil and suffering.
Christianity is one of the few faiths that attempt to answer this question and at the same time gain a
better understanding of God as he is brought into question in regards to his ability to eradicate evil from
the world. As Stephen Law states in The Evil-God Challenge. “there remains an acknowledgment by
many serious-minded theists that it certainly isn’t easy to explain quite why an omnipotent, omniscient,
and supremely benevolent being would unleash so much horror on the sentient inhabitants of this
planet over hundreds of millions of years.”5
The problem of evil
The problem of Evil according to John L. Mackie is “Not that religious beliefs lack rational
support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine
are inconsistent with one another. In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is
wholly good; yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so
that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential
parts of most theological positions; the theologian, it seems at once must adhere and cannot
consistently adhere to all three.”6 This presumably creates a problem for the theist positions as it
challenges the position that God either does not care or is too weak to stop evil. Scottish philosopher
and historian David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion states “Is [God] willing
to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he
malevolent? Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”7
5 Law, Stephen. “The Evil-God Challenge.” Religious Studies 46, no.
3 (February 2010): p355. accessed November 8, 2023https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412509990369.
6 John, Mackie “Evil and Omnipotence,” in The Philosophy of Religion, London: Oxford University Pres, 1971. p.92,
7 Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edited by Martin Bell. London, England: Penguin Classics
1990. 186.
The Problem of Evil, while not unique to Christians, places Christians in a unique position to state
why the God of the Bible is the logical answer. The problem of evil is a mystery and its existence is a
problem for theism (Christians) and said, Edward F Murphey stated “The problem of evil is obviously
more acute for theism than for any other type of philosophy or theology; if it cannot be solved, theism
must be abandoned, retained by faith in hope of a future, as yet unattainable, solution, or held as a truth
above reason.”8
The theoretical problem of evil, also known as the logical problem of evil is the argument that
challenges that the very existence of God is grounded in logic. That argument states that an all-powerful,
all-knowing, and perfectly good God would be aware of evil and thus eliminate this does not take into
consideration of free will. C. S. Lewis a atheism for most of his life. He writes about it in his provocative
book, The Problem of Pain. As Lewis recounts his former defense of atheism, he graphically describes the
evil and misfortune which faces all human beings. He concludes: “If you ask me to believe that this is the
work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil or else and evil
sprit.”9
So why does God allow Evil? D. A. Neal defines theodicy, as deriving from “the Greek words θεός
(theos) (God) and δικέ (dike) (justice), translating to “divine justice. The attempt to defend God’s
omnipotence and goodness in the face of the problem of evil in the world.”10 We can determine that
Theodicy revolves around the nature of god as his relationship to the existence of evil our the nature of
God, as Christians believe his ontological characteristics are antithetical to evil. According to Justin
Mooney, a Killam Memorial Postdoctoral Fellow in the philosophy department at the University of
8 Edward F. Murphy, Handbook for Spiritual Warfare Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996, 12
9 Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples). The Problem of Pain. Pymble, NSW ; Harper Collins, 2009, 16
10 D. A. Neal, "Theodicy", inThe Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown et al.
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
Alberta “God has power over the laws of nature, God can bring about G(ood) without permitting E(vil).
So although E(vil) is tied to G(ood) for human agents, it is not tied to G(ood) for God. But if we imagine
instead that G(ood) entails E(vil), then E(vil) will be tied to G(ood) even for God. God has power over the
laws of nature, God can bring about G(ood) without permitting E(vil). So although E(vil) is tied to G(ood)
for human agents, it is not tied to G(ood) for God. But if we imagine instead that G(ood) entails E(vil),
then E(vil) will be tied to G(ood) even for God”11.
Ricardo Silvestre outlines four different things a theodicy might aim at doing, “each more difficult
than its predecessor. First, a theodicy might seek to explain why O might permit any evil at all. Second, a
theodicy might endeavor to explain why there are instances of the various kinds of evil we find in our
world—animal pain, human suffering, wickedness, etc. Third, a theodicy might endeavor to explain why
there is the amount of evil (of these evils) that we find in our world. And, finally, a theodicy might
endeavor to explain certain particular evils that occur."12
When looking at Theodicy, we can also reasonably conclude that God has reasons in which he
chooses to not reveal the purpose of allowing evil. To understand the purpose, Divine revelation is
needed and we have to become comfortable that God may not great us this revelation. Paul Moser in
Theodicy, Christology, and Divine Hiding: Neutralizing the Problem of Evil stated “If God chooses not to
reveal the divine purposes in allowing unjust suffering and evil in human lives, we humans will have a
hard time identifying them. Without divine revelation, we seem not to have access to those purposes;
nor, without divine revelation, should we expect to have such access."13 There are differing views and
insights in the ways we understand the world, concerning how the world and the great universe work.
11 Justin Mooney “How to Solve the Problem of Evil: a Deontological Strategy,” Faith and Philosophy: Journal
of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 36: Iss. 4, Article 2. p. 442-462
12 Silvestre, Ricardo S. "On the Concept of Theodicy." Sophia, vol. 56, no. 2, 2017, pp. 207-225. accessed
November 8,2023 https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/on-concept-theodicy/docview/1951221006/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0609-6. p.214,
13 Paul K Moser,. “Theodicy, Christology, and Divine Hiding: Neutralizing the Problem of Evil.” The Expository
times 129, no. 5 (2018) 191.
None are more complex than that of suffering especially one the type of suffering that is an enduring
one. Stephen Law in The Evil-God Challenge “Compensatory afterlife theodicy the pain and suffering we
experience in this world is more than compensated for in the afterlife – where we will experience
limitless good. The explanation for why a good god would not simply send us straight to heaven is that it
is only within a law-governed world within which we have free will (something which, according to some
theists, that we can enjoy important goods, including the very great good of doing good of our volition.
As a consequence of inhabiting this world for a short while, we suffer, but this suffering is more than
compensated for by an eternity of communion with God in heaven.”14
Free will
The existence of God has been the subject of much debate ranging from philosophers, students
Theologians and those who have experienced evil in their own life. Those within the religious circles and
those without for centuries have asked how religion and free will coincide. Atheists and theists have
analyzed the validity of free will and God, one group asserts that the claim is irrational and believes that
due to free will, God cannot exist, while others believe it is Rational and logical to believe in God's
existence without proof of his existence based on the evidence of free will.
We are responsible for the actions that we cause and or make. For example, if a child is playing baseball
in the backyard and hits the ball into the neighbor's attic window. Is the ball to blame for breaking the
glass Obviously, the child is responsible for the ball breaking the window., because the child is the one
who caused the window to break. According to Nick Trakakis,
“For someone to possess genuine free will, at least the following criteria must be satisfied: (a) it
must be possible for them to find themselves in situations where they can choose between two
different courses of action, A and B, and (b) in such situations there must be more than a
negligible probability that they will perform A and a more than negligible probability that they
will perform B. If someone could never be placed in such circumstances, we would be inclined to
14 Stephen Law. The Evil-God Challenge. Religious Studies 46, no.3 (2010):367
think of them as more akin to a preprogrammed machine than a person in control of their own
destiny.”15
The alternative to a lack of free will is that we are moist robots. This view of being an “organic robot”
naturally leads to or is a product of a naturalistic worldview, and if that is true, morality does not exist as
all there all there is matter, energy, space, and time. If Naturalism/Atheism is true, we are nothing but
automata. All of our opinions, feelings, thoughts, and even our ideas of what is moral including the
thought of Good and Evil are causally determined by the processing of chemicals and the movement of
electrons within our brain, and other physical processes such as the interactions of atoms. As geneticist
Francis Crick put it “Your joys and your sorrows, your memories, and your ambitions, your sense of
identity and free will, are in-fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their
associated molecules.”16 Wille one can argue from a place of the freedom to do what is evil and that
which is immoral. This argument does not take into consideration that not only doing that which is
immoral is based on free will, but also the simple ability to love, love must be freely given. The argument
of love goes as follows:
1: If man’s love isn’t given freely, it is therefore not genuine.
2: The love of man is genuine.
3: Therefore, man loves freely.
It is by necessity that loves for God and for one another be given in accordance to our own free
will, as it would be impossible to be considered as genuine any other way. Instead, of a genuine love we
would have an artificial one, a programmed love, or a forced one. People who give true love must have
the freedom to choose not to love.
15 Nick Trakakis . SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF FREE WILL THEODICIES Department of
Philosophy, Monash University Vol. 43, No. 2, (October 9 2004) Ashgate Publishing Limited. 90
16 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994 cited in Mariano Artigas, The Mind of the Universe:
Understanding Science and Religion, Templeton Foundation Press, 2001 11.
The Source of Evil.
Evil as the result of general sin, is a prevailing thought for Christian Theists, Evil is an rexult of
human choice. We the option to choose according to Wilton H. Bunch, “Theodicy Through a Lens of
Science “Every human being has the opportunity (choice) to make a difference in something or
someone, but not all choose to do so. One has only to look at a college faculty to see those who devote
themselves to assisting students to mature and grow and those who only appear on campus for their
lectures. But, for each, the choice is theirs.”17 This explanation of evil leads one to believe God is
removed from any source of causation for evil. The evil we experience is a result of our usage of free will
According to Alvin Plantinga, in God, Freedom and Evil “shows that the existence of God is compatible
both logically and probabilistically, with the existence of evil…”18I n conjunction with the idea of free will
is also to that the creations of God are given the ability to exercise free will while at the same time
having the ability to exercise evil. According to James Cain in Free Will and the Problem of Evil, the Free
Will Defense as stated is the “exercise of free will by creatures is of such value that God is willing to allow
the existence of evil which comes from the misuse of free will.”19 There are several things to consider
within this defensive posture, Individuals are free to perform or not perform a certain action that they
deem as being acceptable or unacceptable and laws such as the ones given by the government, the
acceptance of freedom is associated with action.
The question remains if God knows our choices, then why does he not prevent us from making
the bad choices? Dr. Hasker Williams is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Huntington University and
the former editor of Faith and Philosophy he answers this by saying “If all the significant evil
consequences of all immoral actions were thus prevented, agents would surely become aware that
17 Wilton H. Bunch, “Theodicy Through a Lens of Science”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 67, no.3
(2015): 192
18 Alvin Plantinga,God, Freedom and Evil.Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977, 64
19 James Cain, "Free Will and the Problem of Evil." Religious Studies 40, no. 4 (12, 2004): 437
actions that would seriously harm other persons would fail to accomplish their ends; exercise of that sort
of free choice would then become impossible. And humans who become aware that God can be counted
on to prevent evils as required by the principles will suffer a serious loss of motivation to prevent the
evils themselves.”20 if God stopped or prevented evil things from happening then we would no longer
have the free will to do that which is good and will lose the motivate to prevent evil.
Conclusion
The existence of evil in the world still stands as the great enigma wrapped in mystery however
we who profess Christ as lord do not live in total despair. The God of the Christian religion has offered
men a way for the overcoming of evil through insight and faith and a life in right relations with God and
man.21
It is inevitable and logical that men attempt to come to an intellectual solution to this problem as
throughout history all religions have set out on this difficult task. Unfortunately many have placed their
heads in the sand by stating that our morality whether good or evil is a product of evolution and thus not
offering any solution at all. Denying the existence of evil is nonsensical it conflict with what we see on a
daily basis. Suggesting the presence of an opposing cosmic force other than God ventures into
speculative realms devoid of genuine philosophical basis.
20 William. Hasker, 2021. "James Sterba’s New Argument from Evil" Religions 12, no. 1: 21. .3
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010021.
21 Harris Franklin Rall,. Christianity, an Inquiry into Its Nature and Truth. New York: C. Scribner’s sons, 1940. 343
Bibliography
Cain, James. "Free Will and the Problem of Evil." Religious Studies 40, no. 4 (12, 2004): 437.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York, New
York: Random House, 1933. Pp. 245-246.
Hasker, William. 2021. "James Sterba’s New Argument from Evil." Religions 12, no. 1: 21.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010021.
Harris Franklin Rall. Christianity, an Inquiry into Its Nature and Truth. New York: C. Scribner’s
Sons, 1940. P. 343.
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edited by Martin Bell. London, England:
Penguin Classics, 1990. P. 186.
Law, Stephen. "The Evil-God Challenge." Religious Studies 46, no. 3 (February 2010): p355.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412509990369.
Law, Stephen. "Introduction to the Evil God Challenge." Think 18, no. 51 (2019): 5–9.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s1477175618000301.
Law, Stephen. The Evil-God Challenge. Religious Studies 46, no.3 (2010):367.
Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples). The Problem of Pain. Pymble, NSW; Harper Collins, 2009. P. 16.
Mackie, John. “Evil and Omnipotence.” In The Philosophy of Religion. London: Oxford University
Press, 1971. P. 92.
Mooney, Justin. “How to Solve the Problem of Evil: a Deontological Strategy.” Faith and
Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Vol. 36: Iss. 4, Article 2. Pp. 442-462.
Moser, Paul K. “Theodicy, Christology, and Divine Hiding: Neutralizing the Problem of Evil.” The
Expository Times 129, no. 5 (2018): 191.
Murphy, Edward F. Handbook for Spiritual Warfare. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996. P. 12.
Neal D. A. "Theodicy." In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar,
Derek R. Brown et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Ooi, Daryl. “Theodicy on Trial.” Philosophia 50, no. 4 (2022): p.2018.
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1977. P. 64.
Silvestre, Ricardo S. "On the Concept of Theodicy." Sophia vol. 56, no. 2, 2017: pp. 207-225.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0609-6. P. 214.
Trakakis, Nick. "SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF FREE WILL THEODICIES."
Department of Philosophy, Monash University Vol. 43, No. 2, (October 9 2004). Ashgate
Publishing Limited. P. 90.
Wilton H. Bunch. “Theodicy Through a Lens of Science.” Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith 67, no.3 (2015): 192.
