The Problem of Evil

Natural Evil: disharmony within the natural world; for example natural disasters, diseases.

Moral Evil: Evil which is caused by human action.

God as Classically Defined: Omnipotent; Omnibenevolent; Omniscient.

The Logical Problem of Evil

Logical Problems of evil are a priori arguments that state that evil and God (as classically defined) cannot coexist.
These arguments are powerful because they attempt to prove, not just suggest, that God CANNOT exist if evil exists in the world.
This is the nature of a priori arguments, they offer complete proof, but it takes less to disprove them.
These arguments are logical and a priori because the conclusions are established from an analysis of the definitions involved. We know that a traditional God must be omnibenevolent and omnipotent, without any reference to experience.

Epicurean paradox

This is a logical dilemma about the coexistence of God and evil.

It goes as follows:

"God," says Epicurus, "either wants to remove evils, but cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he does not want to and cannot; or he wants to and can. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent; which is inadmissible in God. If he can, but does not want to, he is envious; which is also alien to God. If he does not want to and cannot, then he is envious and impotent; and this too cannot be attributed to God. If he wants to and can, which alone is proper to God, then where do evils come from? Or why does he not remove them?

Simply put:
- If God is able and willing to stop evil, why doesn't he?

- If he is it not able, he is not omnipotent.

- If he is not willing, he is not omnibenevolent.

- If god is neither able nor willing, then why do we call him a God?

The Epicurean Paradox is attributed to, well, Epicurus. However, it might be incorrectly attributed to him by someone named Lactantius, Christian author and advisor to Constantine I.

There is no actual text that confirms that Epicurus was the author of this paradox. Other options for authorship include Sextus Empiricus and Carneades.

Mackie's Inconsistent Triad

Mackie elaborated on the Epicurean paradox by creating the inconsistent Triad.
Mackie claims that evil, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible and therefore cannot all exist at the same time. One must be lost.
If God is omnipotent, he should have the power to eliminate evil.
If God is omnibenevolent, he should be want to eliminate evil.
Evil, therefore, cannot exist if there is a being with the power and want to eliminate it.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

Evidential Problems of evil are a posteriori, inductive arguments that offer evidence to suggest that belief in God is unjustified.
They are not as strong as logical problems of evil because they only suggest that God might not exist but there could still be a logical way in which God and evil could exist.
However while not as strong as the logical arguments, evidential arguments are easier to defend and do not fall apart as easily - you can just keep throwing evidence to suggest belief in God is unjustified.

Hume's Evidential Problems of Evil

Hume puts forwards different examples of a posteriori evidence that belief in God in unjustified:
Animal suffering: "But neither man nor any other animal is happy. Therefore he does not want your happiness."
Humans and Animals cannot guarantee their own happiness: "[God's] wisdom is infinite: he never errs in choosing the means to any end: but the course of nature tends to be contrary to any human or animal happiness"
Why is there Natural evil when God could prevent this? “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”
Charles Darwin also writes about the suffering of animals: "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one"

William Rowe's Evidential Problems of Evil

We experience instances of such extreme evil and intense suffering that could have been prevented if a God, as classically defined, existed.
An omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being would prevent the occurence of intense suffering unless it could not do so.
"In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering."
What is to be gained or learned from this intense and unwitnessed suffering?
This sort of evil is also discussed in the book The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. In this book, the character Ivan asks his brother Alyosha how an all loving, all powerful being could allow a world with such gratuitous evil. He points to the examples of extreme suffering of children and claims that no heaven could ever justify the amount of intense suffering some people face in this life.