The Problem of Evil

INTRODUCTION

This course paper is about the many problems of evil and their solutions, for instance, natural problem of evil, moral problem of evil, physical problem of evil, and logical problem of evil. Because all of us encounter the problem of evil and suffering, which is almost as old as humankind is. Yet, it continues to draw the attention of philosophers, theologians, artists, novelists, and common men and women alike, because it touches all, ravages many, and perplexes thinking people. So everyone thinks and wonders about the existence of evil and suffering in the world. So the problem of evil is the most widely considered objection to theism in both Western and Eastern philosophy. “If there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and completely good, why is there evil?”[1] The controversy over the problem of evil has been generated such question whether God exist at all. There are basic ways of relating God and evil. First, one may affirm the reality of evil and deny God (Atheism). Second, one may affirm God and deny the reality of evil (Pantheism). Finally, one may attempt to show the compatibility of God and evil. Since this last view is breaks down into a number of variations of theism (believing in God or gods) and dualism (holds that good and evil exist in eternal position). The issue of the problem of evil is a direct challenge to God’s attributes: God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, and God is complete good. In defense of Christian belief many theologians and Christian apologists have responded to the problem of evil. The major terms used in the problem of evil are; evil, freewill, goodness of God, God is all powerful, all knowing God etc. Skeptics; if we have such God than why there is suffering and evil in the world? This question is a great stumbling block since centuries for many to believe in God’s existence and receive forgiveness, love, and eternal life from Him. Here is an attempt to understand the root and cause for the existence of evil and suffering in the world and scriptural basis given solution for the problem evil.    

CHAPTER 1: PROBLEM OF EVIL AND WORLD VIEWS

There is a whole range of responses to the problem of evil and suffering. Some deny God’s reality (atheism), some deny God’s power (polytheism, dualism, finite godism etc.), some deny God’s goodness (Satanism, Pantheism, and Deism), and some deny evil itself (Idealism, Pantheism at one level, and Christian Science). There are two dominant responses – the theistic and atheistic or naturalistic. The atheist, in true empirical fashion, wishes to logically compute the presence of evil into its simplest, rational form. Just like the belief in the null-existence of God, there is no such thing as evil. Conversely, anything identified as good is reciprocal to the concept of evil.

1.1 Buddhist Response to the Problem of Evil

Response: Buddhism is a system that is centred on the problem of suffering, because it is based on Buddha’s answer to this problem. When he encountered suffering, he started wondering why people fall sick, grow old, and die. While thinking about the question what is the Cause of all this Suffering? He saw a sanyasi and thought that he might unravel the mystery of suffering if he became a sanyasi and became one. Then he sat under a Bodhi tree determined to read the great riddle. After he became enlightened he annunciated his Four Noble Truths, which constitute the essence of Buddhism:

             1. Life is suffering (dukkha) – we are born in and live in suffering, and we die in suffering. Suffering is ‘having what you wish you hadn’t and not having    what you wish you had.’

             2. Suffering is caused by desire (tanha, greed or craving or selfishness). When there is a gap between desire and satisfaction, there is suffering (the gap     itself).
             3. The way to end suffering is to end desire. The state where you have ended desire is Nirvana (extinction). We generally try to overcome suffering by increasing satisfaction. But Buddha’s solution is ‘decreasing the desire to zero.'

            4. The means to reach the end of ‘ending desire’ is the Noble Eightfold Path of     ‘ego-reduction,’ a life-long task of ‘desire-reduction’ to reach Nirvana.[2]

When we think critically, we will realize that Buddha’s solution for the suffering is not adequate and counter-intuitive. In a sense, it is not a solution at all. Nirvana is like spiritual euthanasia, killing the patient (self or ego) to cure/get rid of the disease (selfishness or egotism) or instead of curing the disease and saving the patient. Buddha’s suggested solution is not achievable, because even if you work very hard and eliminate all the desires, you are still left with one final desire – the desire not to have any other desires. This is inescapable, because if you do not have this desire, you will end up having all other desires. This is the problem with the Buddhist solution; you cannot reach an absolutely desireless state.

Buddhism suggests that we should eliminate the ‘I’ that desires and suffers. But are all the desires of the ‘I’ evil and hence undesirable? At least some of our desires are good. Not having some desires (like the desire to take care of your spouse and children, the desire to do work in the office, the desire to study if you are a student, etc.) and not doing something to fulfil those desires amounts to irresponsible behaviour and failure in life. Buddha seems to be unaware of this aspect of desires and of the possibility of unselfish love or will or passion or self.  If there is a possibility of attaining an unselfish self, then we should aspire that, because that would certainly be a better solution than the Buddhist solution.

1.2 Pantheistic Response to the Problem of Evil

Response: According to Pantheism (Advaitha Vedanta) there are no two realities – all reality is one, Brahman. The Sanskrit statement Jagam Midhya, Brahma(n) Satyam means ‘the world is illusion, and Brahman is real/true. So the distinction between good and evil, pain and pleasure etc., is not real in the ultimate sense, and evil and suffering are illusory. Some say that we experience or feel evil and suffering to be real because of maya. Christian Science, a cult started by Mary Baker Eddy and the ancient Greek thinkers like Parmenides and Zeno also taught that evil and suffering are false perceptions or illusions. These systems fall under illusionism[3]. This ideology was developed by Hindu philosopher Adi Shankracharya. He argued that only Brahman is reality. The external world is illusion (Maya). The only basis for the world is psychological, not ontological.[4] It appears to be something, the way a rope appears to be a snake until one gets closer to it. Brahman (God) cause the world and evil in the same way that the rope causes the serpent to appear.

Pantheists are ignorant about the evil even such moral evil which find in sacred literatures by keeping themselves behind the curtain of illusion:

1.2.1 Evil in the Vedas

In the hymns addressed to Varuna evil is a matter of humans not fulfilling his laws or not performing the ritual properly. Often it has a moral significance, in that people are evil minded or commit adultery (Rig Veda 4, 5; 10, 10). Those who commit evil deeds must repent before Varuna (Rig Veda 5, 85) and try to repair their evil deeds through ritual sacrifices. In other hymns, as those addressed to Indra, evil is personified by demons. Thus the fight against evil is a perpetual combat between personalized good and evil forces.

1.2.2 Evil in the Upanishads

The Upanishads ground a pantheistic perspective on Ultimate Reality and introduce karma as the explanation of evil in the world. Ignorance launches karma into action and karma brings suffering. As the manifestations and dissolutions of the world have no beginning and no end, so is karma, meaning that suffering is a part of the eternal cosmic cycle. Suffering in the present life is the natural consequence of past lives’ ignorance and it has to be endured without questioning.

1.2.3 Evil in Samkhya Yoga

Although the Samkhya and Yoga darshanas are not pantheistic, they follow a similar view in defining evil. It is a matter of how much one is caught in the psycho­mental illusions generated by the primordial substance (prakriti). Two of the three gunas (rajas and tamas), are causing the manifestations of what we call evil in the world, both in the physical and in the mental realm.

1.2.4 Evil in the Epics and Puranas

The writings of Hindu theism adopt a middle way in explaining evil, between the dictates of karma and the responsibility of the gods in producing it as sovereign agents in the universe. As these two elements are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive, the solutions to the problem of evil are themselves contradictory. The character of the gods becomes quite ambiguous in the Epics and the Puranas. They are responsible for producing both good and evil. For instance, Indra, the ex­hero of the Vedas, commits adultery in the Skanda Purana (2, 7, 23, 8­40) and justifies himself by the effect of his past karma. In the Mahabharata (12, 258, 42) he is excused for seducing Gotama’s wife since he was in a process of working out his karma. No wonders that in the Ramayana (7, 30, 20­45) he is accused of having initiated adultery in our world by his bad example.[5]

Although Krishna is to be followed as example according to the (Bhagavad Gita 3,23), when committing adultery in the Puranas he justifies himself in reference to human behavior, saying: "Since even the sages are uncontrolled and act as they please, how could one possibly restrain Vishnu when he becomes voluntary incarnate?" (Bhagavata Purana 10, 33, 35).

Brahma, the creator god, is often accused of being creator of both good and evil. In one situation described in the Mahabharata, he grew jealous of people and their heavenly destiny and planned to delude them: "Formerly, all creatures were virtuous, and by themselves they obtained divinity. Therefore the gods became worried, so Brahma created women in order to delude men. Then women, who had been virtuous, became wicked witches, and Brahma filled them with wanton desires, which they in turn inspired in men. He created anger, and henceforth all creatures were born in the power of desire and anger (Mahabharata 13, 40, 5­12). According to the Vishnu Purana (1, 5, 1­18), evil precedes and accompanies Brahma’s creation, this being the reason why mankind is evil: "His fourth creation produced creatures in which darkness and passion predominated, afflicted by misery; These were mankind." In the Markandeya Purana (45, 40) it is said that he created both "cruel creatures and gentle creatures, dharma and adharma, truth and falsehood." Not only is evil inevitable in creation, but it is said to be a good thing, a necessary dynamic factor in the universe. For instance, in the Devibhagavata (4,13), Brihaspati, the guru of the gods says: "All creatures, even gods, are subject to passions. Otherwise the universe, composed as it is of good and evil, could not continue to develop. According to the Vishnu Purana (1, 5, 59­65), the existence of evil in creation is both the will of Brahma the creator and the result of the obligation created by karma. In the same situation is Vishnu (Linga Purana 2, 6, 1­57), who creates under the power of karma both good and evil, "good people and bad people, those who follow the right path, but also the heretics.

 Illusionism solves the problem of evil and suffering by just denying its reality. It does not explain, but simply explains the problem away. If evil and suffering are illusory, where did the illusion originate? If they are indeed illusory, why do we all experience evil and suffering from the moment of birth and think they are real?

1.3 Islamic Response to the Problem of Evil

In Islam, there are two views of suffering. Suffering is either the painful result of sin, or it is a test. In the latter view, suffering tests belief; a true Muslim will remain faithful through the trials of life. But suffering also reveals the hidden self to God. Suffering is built into the fabric of existence so that God may see who is truly righteous. In other words, God not only allows the various agonies and struggles of life, but has a purpose for them. Suffering opens up the soul and reveals it to God. God uses suffering to look within humans and test their characters, and correct the unbelievers. Suffering is also a painful result of sin. In Islam, sin is associated with unbelief.  Sometimes people forget to listen to the prophets, and fail to serve God in all that they do. This is the state of unbelief, called kufr, which literally means to forget through hiding of the truth. The moment of unbelief can happen to anyone, and when people realize their mistake, they suffer. Seen in this light, suffering is not only painful, but a lesson. It reminds humans of the truth of God's revelation. Although all people are imperfect and vulnerable to kufr, Islam does not teach that they are essentially evil. When they realize their sin and make amends with true remorse, God forgives the sin. Genuine repentance is all that is needed to restore humans to a sinless state. However, individuals are always vulnerable to it, and sin and suffering are serious matters. The great struggle, or jihad, of human life is the struggle to perfect one's heart and live in total submission to God. It is possible to be a perfect Muslim, since God does not ask anyone to do anything that is beyond his or her ability. But perfect Muslims, like prophets, are very rare individuals. Most must be vigilant and always begin with the intention to do well.  Islam teaches the endurance of suffering with hope and faith. The faithful are not counseled to resist it, or to ask why. Instead, they accept it as God's will and live through it with faith that God never asks more of them than they can endure. However, Islam also teaches the faithful to work actively to alleviate the suffering of others. Recognizing that they are the cause of their own suffering, individuals work to bring suffering to an end. In the Islamic view, righteous individuals are revealed not only through patient acceptance of their own suffering, but through their good works for others. And if suffering is a consequence of unbelief, then good works will relieve pain.[6]

1.4 Atheistic (Naturalistic) Response to the Problem of Evil

The simplest answer to the problem of evil and suffering for an atheist is that there is no God. I do not understand how just denying the existence of God could solve our problem. But there is a close link between God and the problem. This is why the naturalists argue for the non-existence of God on the basis of evil and suffering. They think that the reality of evil refutes the reality of God. The atheistic evidential argument (unlike the logical argument) sees evil as posing a serious challenge to theism, because the evils found in the world are supposed to lower the probability of the existence of God. There have been a variety of evidential arguments from evil and suffering that focus on different aspects of evil and suffering.

To complain meaningfully that there is unjustified evil or suffering in the world, one must suppose an ultimate standard of justice beyond this world. If there were no such standard, justice would become relativistic; there would not be any basis for us to classify certain things as injustice and others as justice. To affirm that there is unjustified evil one must smuggle in the concept of an absolute and posit an absolute standard of justice. The standard has to come form beyond nature, because otherwise we will be left with a relativistic understanding of justice and morality. Such a view is not tenable or liveable. If one of us thinks killing is right and another thinks killing is not right and each one of us is free to do what he or she thinks subjectively (relativistically) to be right, how can we convince this person that killing is wrong? Relativism leaves us in utter chaos and confusion; we cannot live together harmoniously. But the naturalist cannot bring in such a standard, because in his world view, there is no reality beyond the nature, matter/molecules. There is no mind that controls the molecules. If there is no mind beyond matter, how can we bring in the concept of absolute morality to decide that something is injustice or justice? Thus in the naturalistic world view there is no ultimate standard beyond this world and there are no deep moral values at all. The naturalistic world, which has nothing but matter in motion is indifferent to moral values, to injustice and justice, and to justified and unjustified suffering. The simple judgement that there is evil or that the world is not what it ought to be implies that there is some deep value (based on some non-natural reality) that is being violated. To say that something is evil, bad, or wrong we need an absolute standard that is outside of but connected to the world. This ultimate standard is God, the prescriber of the moral laws (impinging on all of us universally) against which we measure different things that we experience and say this is evil or bad, this is good or right, and this is how things ought to be or ought not to be. So the atheistic argument is counter-productive, ends up supporting or proving theism. Atheism has no framework to address the problem of evil and suffering.

1.5 Gnostic Response to the of Evil

Gnosticism refers to several beliefs seeing evil as due to the world being created by an imperfect God, the demiurge, which is contrasted with a superior entity. However, this by itself does not answer the problem of evil if the superior entity is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Different gnostic beliefs may give varying answers, like Manichaeism, which adopts dualism, in opposition to the doctrine of omnipotence.

1.6 Irenaean Theodicy Response to the Problem of Evil

Irenaean theodicy, posited by Irenaeus (2nd century AD c. 202), has been reformulated by John Hick. It holds that one cannot achieve moral goodness or love for God if there is no evil and suffering in the world. Evil is soul making and leads one to be truly moral and close to God. God created an epistemic distance (such that God is not immediately knowable) so that we may strive to know him and by doing so become truly good. Evil is a means to good for 3 main reasons:

1.  Means of knowledge – Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.

2.  Character building – Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. We would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a hedonistic paradise

3.  Predictable environment – The world runs to a series of natural laws. These are independent of any inhabitants of the universe. Natural Evil only occurs when these natural laws conflict with our own perceived needs. This is not immoral in any way

1.7 Philosophers’ Response to the Problem of Evil

1.7.1 Epicurus

Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called "the Epicurean paradox" or "the riddle of Epicurus":

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
      Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.                                                               
      Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil?  
      Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
       the Epicurean paradox[7].

1.7.2 David Hume

David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: "Is he (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?"[8]

[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?

1.7.3 Thomas Robert Malthus

The population and economic theorist Thomas Malthus argued in a 1798 essay that evil exists to spur human creativity and production. Without evil or the necessity of strife mankind would have remained in a savage state since all amenities would be provided for.[9]

1.7.4 Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant argued for skeptical theism. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith. He wrote: “we can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects which are beyond our reach. This can easily be demonstrated and will put an end once and for all to the trial.”[10]

1.7.5 William Hatcher

Mathematical logician William Hatcher (a member of the Baha'i Faith) made use of relational logic to claim that very simple models of moral value cannot be consistent with the premise of evil as an absolute, whereas goodness as an absolute is entirely consistent with the other postulates concerning moral value. In Hatcher's view, one can only validly say that if an act A is "less good" than an act B, one cannot logically commit to saying that A is absolutely evil, unless one is prepared to abandon other more reasonable principles.[11]

CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN A APPROPRIATE MANNER

2.1 Problem with the Problem of Evil

The two most common misunderstandings about evil that make the problem more difficult than it needs to be are (1) the tendency to see evil as a being and (2) the confusion between two very different kinds of evil, physical evil and moral evil.

First evil is not a being, thing, substance or entity. This was Augustine’s great breakthrough that liberated him from Manichaean dualism (the belief in two ultimate beings, one good, and one evil). He realized that all being is good metaphysically, or ontologically, or in its being. For all being is either the creator or his creatures he himself is good, and he declares everything he created good (Gen.1).[12] And that all the being there is.

If evil were a being, the problem of evil would be insolvable, for then either God made it and thus he is not all good or else God did not make it and thus he is not all powerful creator of all things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of the sword that chops off your head is not evil in its being; in fact, unless it is a “good” stroke, it will not chop your head off. Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order into the physical world of things and acts: the order between sword and an innocent’s neck rather than a murderer’s neck or an innocent’s bonds.[13]

Even the devil is good in his being. He is a good thing gone bad-in fact, a very good thing gone very badly. If he had not had the greatest ontological goodness (goodness in his being) of a powerful mind and will, he could never have become as morally corrupt as he is. "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds. The corruption of the best things is the worst things." To be morally bad, you must first be ontologically good. Even physical evil is not a thing. The lack of power in a paralyzed limb is physical evil, but it is not a thing, like another limb. Blindness is a physical evil, but it is not a thing, like an eye. The cataract that causes the evil is not itself the evil.

Is evil then merely subjective, a fantasy, and an illusion? No, for if it were a mere subjective illusion, then the fact that we fear this mere illusion would be really evil. As Augustine says, "thus either the evil that we fear is real, or the fact that we fear it is evil."

Evil is real, but it is not a real thing. It is not subjective, but it is not a substance. Augustine defines evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, nonconformity between our will and God's will. God did not make it; we did. That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 and 3, the stories of God's good creation and humanity's evil fall.

The second major confusion about evil is to fail to distinguish between moral evil and physical evil, sin and suffering, the evil we actively do and the evil we passively suffer, the evil we freely will and the evil that is against our will, the evil we are directly responsible for and the evil we are not. We need two different explanations for these two different kinds of evil, to explain both their causes and their cures. The origin of sin is human free will. The immediate origin of suffering is nature, or rather the relationship between us and nature. We stub our toe, or get pneumonia, or drown. Thus God is off the hook for sin, but not for suffering, it seems-unless the origin of suffering can also be traced to sin. This is what the story in Genesis 3 does. Without explaining how, it tells us that the thorns and thistles and the sweat of the brow and the pain of childbirth all are the result of our sin.

2.2 Free Will

2.2.1 Definition

Use of the term "free will" creates confusion unless its definition is stated. In order to reduce confusion, Mortimer Adler[14] found that a delineation of three kinds of freedom is necessary for clarity on the subject ("Free will" and "freedom" are often used as synonyms). These three kinds of freedom follow:

 1. "Circumstantial freedom" is "freedom from coercion or restraint" that prevents acting as one wills.

 2.  "Natural freedom" is freedom to will what one desires. This natural free will is inherent in all people.

 3.  "Acquired freedom" is freedom "to live as [one] ought." To possess acquired free will requires a change by which a person acquires a desire to live     a life marked by qualities such as goodness and wisdom.[15]

2.2.2 Free Will

The simplest argument for the existence of free will is observation of how we use words. We praise, blame, command, counsel, exhort and moralize to each other. Doing these things to robots is absurd. We do not hold machines morally responsible for what they do, no matter how complicated the machines are. If there is no free will, all moral meaning disappears from language and from life.

According to determinism, everything we do can be totally accounted for by two causes: heredity plus environment. Free will adds a third cause to our actions: our wills, which in turn are not entirely the result of heredity plus environment.

There is another form of determinism that denies free will. This is divine determinism, as seen in some (but not all) forms of Calvinism. According to this Calvinism we are pots and God is the potter; we are only instrumental causes, like the mud in the potter's hands, totally determined by the First Cause. There is another form of determinism that denies free will. This is divine determinism, as seen in some (but not all) forms of Calvinism. According to this Calvinism we are pots and God is the potter; we are only instrumental causes, like the mud in the potter's hands, totally determined by the First Cause.[16]

Other Christians have taken the more pervasive scriptural image of the parent-child relationship as closer to the truth-we are not God's artifacts but his children-and ascribed free choice to the human will.

The next question is: Why did God give us free will and allow us to misuse it? The question is misleading. One gives a polish to a table, or a pony to a schoolboy, but one does not give three sides to a triangle or free will to a human being. Free will is part of our essence. There can be no human being without it. The alternative to free will is not being a human but an animal or a machine.

2.3 The Purpose for Much Evil is known by us

In spite of the fact that we do not know everything, we do know something. And what we do know is that there is a good purpose for much evil. Warning pains have a good purpose. In fact, the ability to have pain has a good purpose. For if we had no nervous system we could destroy ourselves without even feeling any pain. Also, physical pain can be a warning to save us from moral disaster. As C. S. Lewis noted, “pain is God’s megaphone to warn a morally deaf world. And if we as finite beings know a good purpose for much evil, then surely an infinite Mind can know a good purpose for the rest.”[17]

2.4 Evil Sometimes is a Byproduct of a Good Purpose

Not every specific evil needs a good purpose. Some evil can simply be a necessary byproduct of a good purpose. The early bird gets the worm, but the early worm gets eaten. What is life for higher forms is death for lower forms. Plants and animals die so that man may have food to live. Thus, evil results indirectly from good because it is the consequence of a good purpose.

Not every specific event in the world needs to have a good purpose; only the general purpose needs to be good. The blacksmith has a good purpose for hammering the molten iron into a horseshoe. However, not every spark that flies has a purpose for its destiny. Some sparks may ignite unintended fires. Likewise, God had a good purpose for creating water (to sustain life), but drowning is one of the evil by-products. Thus, not every specific drowning need to have a good purpose, even though making the water in which they drown did. So many good things would be missed if God did not permit evil to exist. Fire does not burn unless air is consumed. Neither just retribution is inflicted nor patience is achieved, but for the evil of tribulation.

2.5 God can bring Good Out of Evil

Of course, God is all-powerful and he is able to redeem good even from evils. A drowning person may inspire acts of bravery. Although sawdust is an unintended by-product of making lumber, it can be salvaged to make paper. Likewise, God in his providence is able to redeem much (if not all) good out of the evil by-products in the world. God would in no wise permit evil to exist in his works unless he were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.

That does not mean that this present world is the best of all possible worlds. It means that God has made it the best possible way to attain his ultimate goal of the greater good. God may not always redeem good out of every evil by-product in a fallen world. This could be true in both the physical and the moral realm. Like radioactive waste, some evil by-products may resist reprocessing. Indeed, in view of the second law of thermodynamics, the physical world is decaying. But God has the power to recreate it (2 Pet. 3:13). Human death can be overcome by resurrection (Rom. 8; 1Cor. 15). Neither of these is any problem for an omnipotent God.

2.6 The Problem of Physical Evil

The solution to the problem of evil does not appear to solve the problem of natural disasters. Why tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes? It does not suffice to say that the free will of creatures caused all these. Further, many innocent people are killed in them. How, then, can natural evil be explained. In logical form:

1.      Moral evil is explained by free choice.

2.      But some natural evil does not result from free choice.

3.      Natural evil cannot be explained by free choice of creatures.

4.      Hence, God must be responsible for natural evil.

5.      But natural evils cause innocent suffering and death.

6.      Therefore, God is responsible for innocent suffering and death.[18]

Theists question several premises of this argument. One response to premise 5, for example, is that in this fallen world no one is innocent. We sinned in Adam (Rom. 5:12) and as a consequence deserve death (Rom. 6:23). Natural disaster is a direct result of the curse on creation because of the fall of humankind (Gen. 3; Rom. 8). It will not be removed until Christ returns (Rev. 21–22).

Likewise, proposition 6 is mistaken, since it implies God is morally culpable for taking the life of a creature. This is a category mistake, since it wrongly assumes that, since it is wrong for a creature to take innocent life, it is also wrong for the Creator to do so. But God gave life and alone has the right to take it (Deut. 32:39; Job 1:21). We did not give life, and we do not have the right to take it.

Premise 3 is definitely untrue. For theism can explain all natural evil by reference to free choice. In biblical language, the free choice of Adam and Eve brought natural disaster on this world. In addition the free choice of evil angels accounts for the rest of human suffering. But even putting this possibility aside, which could in itself explain all natural evil, physical suffering can be explained in reference to human free choice.

1. Some suffering is brought on directly by our own free choice. The choice to abuse   my body can result in sickness.

 2. Some suffering is brought on indirectly by free choice. The choice to be lazy can result in poverty.

 3. Some physical evil to others can result from our free choice, as in the case of spouse or child abuse.

  4. Others suffer indirectly because of our free choice. Alcoholism can lead to poverty of one’s children.

   5. Some physical evil may be a necessary by-product of a good process. Rain, hot air, and cool air are all necessary for food and life, but a by-product of these forces is a tornado.

  6. Some physical evil may be a necessary condition for attaining a greater moral good. God uses pain to get our attention. Many have come to God through suffering.

   7. Some physical suffering may be a necessary condition of a greater moral good. Just as diamonds are formed under pressure, even so is character.

   8. Some physical evil is a necessary concomitant of a morally good physical world. For instance, it is good to have water to swim and boat in, but a necessary concomitant is that we can also drown in it. It is good to have sex for procreation and enjoyment, even though it makes rape possible. It is good to have food to eat, but this also makes dying of food poisoning possible.[19]

At this point the critic could always ask why a physical world is necessary. Why did not God make spirits, who could not hurt their bodies or die? The answer is: God did; they are called angels. The problem is that, while no angel can die of food poisoning, neither can they enjoy a prime rib. While no angel has ever drowned, neither has any angel ever gone for a swim or went water skiing. No angel has ever been raped, but neither has any angel ever enjoyed sex or the blessing of having children (Matt. 22:30). In this kind of physical world, we simply must take the concomitant evil along with the good.

Eventually, of course, Christian theists believe God will redeem us from all physical evil too, giving us immortal and incorruptible bodies. But if we had those before we were morally ready for them, we would not have made the necessary moral progress toward being suited to them.

2.7 The Avoidability of Evil

 If God knew evil would occur, why did he create it? God was free to create or not to create. Why did he choose to create a world he knew would fall? Theists believed God is all-knowing, all-good, and free. As all-knowing, God foresaw evil. As free, he could have avoided creating the world. But this conflicts with God as all-good, for such a God must have had a good purpose for creating a world he knew would fall. Why then did he create it? There were other better alternatives open to God. He could have not created at all. He could have created a non-moral world where no sin could occur. He could have created a free world where no one would have chosen to sin. He could have created a world where sin occurred but where everyone was ultimately saved. Any one of these worlds would have been better than the world conceived by the orthodox Christian theist, where evil occurs and where not everyone will be saved in the end.

1. God could have chosen a better alternative by: (a) not creating at all; (b) not creating a free world; (c) creating a free world that would not sin; (d) creating a world that sinned but would all be saved.

2. But God did not choose one of these better alternatives.

3. Therefore God did not do his best.

4. But to do less than his best is an evil for God.

5. Therefore, no all-perfect God exists.[20]

Some theists challenge the fourth premise, arguing that God does not have to do his best; he merely has to do good. And what he did in creating this world was good, even if there could have been something better. But assuming, for the argument, that God must do his best, is any other alternative really better than this world? Theists say no.

 A nonworld is not better than some world nothing is not better than something. This is a classic category mistake. Something and nothing have nothing in common, so they cannot be compared. It is not even like comparing apples and oranges, since they both are fruit. It is like comparing apples and nonapples, insisting that nonapples taste better.

A nonfree world is not morally better than a free world. A nonfree world is a nonmoral world, since free will is necessary for morality. A nonmoral world cannot be morally better than a moral world. Since a nonfree world is not a moral world, there is no moral basis for comparison. This too is a category mistake.

A free world where no one sins or even a free world where everyone sins and then gets saved is conceivable but it may not be achievable . As long as everyone is really free, it is always possible that someone will refuse to do the good. Of course, God could force everyone to do good, but then they would not be free. Forced freedom is not freedom at all. Since God is love, he cannot force himself on anyone against their will. Forced love is not love; it is rape. And God is not a divine rapist. Love must work persuasively but not coercively. Hence, in every conceivable free world someone would choose to do evil, so a perfect evil-free world may not be possible.

A world where sin never materializes is conceivable but it may not be the most desirable morally. If evil is not permitted, then it cannot be defeated. Like automobiles, a tested world is better than an untested one. Or, to put it another way, no boxer can beat an opponent without getting into the ring. God may have permitted evil in order to defeat it. If evil is not allowed, then the higher virtues cannot be attained. No pain, no gain. Tribulation works patience. There is no way to experience the joy of forgiveness without allowing the fall into sin. So, a world where evil is not defeated and the higher goods attained would not be the best world achievable. Therefore, while a world where sin does not occur is theoretically conceivable, it would be morally inferior.

No one has demonstrated that any alternative world is morally better than the one we have. Hence, no antitheist can show that God did not create the best world, even given the privation of good. This, of course, does not mean that the theist is committed to the belief that this present world is the best world that can be achieved. God is not finished yet, and Scripture promises that something better will be achieved. The theist’s assumption is that this world is the best way to the best world achievable.

2.8 The Four most Salient Facts about the Human Condition

            1. All desire perfect happiness.

            2. No one is perfectly happy.

            3. All desire complete certainty and perfect wisdom.

            4. No one is completely certain or perfectly wise.

The two things we all want are the two things no one has. We behave as if we remember Eden and can't recapture it, like kings and queens dressed in rags who are wandering the world in search of their thrones. If we had never reigned, why would we seek a throne? If we had always been beggars, why would we be discontent? People born beggars in a society of beggars accept themselves as they are. The fact that we gloriously and irrationally disobey the first and greatest commandment of our modem prophets that we do not accept ourselves as we are-strongly points to the conclusion that we must at least unconsciously desire, and thus somehow remember, a better state.

CHAPTER 3: SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

3.1 Logical Solution of Problem of Evil

Evil is not a thing, an entity, a being. All beings are either the Creator or creatures created by the Creator. But everything God created is good, according to Genesis. We naturally tend to picture evil as a thing a black cloud, or a dangerous storm, or a grimacing face, or dirt. But these pictures mislead us. If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the Creator of evil, and he is to blame for its existence. No, evil is not a thing but a wrong choice, or the damage done by a wrong choice. Evil is no more a positive thing than blindness is. But it is just as real not a thing or an illusion.

What is evil?

According to atheist; the problem can be summarized this way:

            1. God is the author of everything

            2. Evil is some thing

            3. Therefore, God is the author of evil

The theist responds that evil is not a thing or substance. Rather it is a lack or privation of a good thing that God made.

Therefore:

            1. God created every substance

            2. Evil is not a substance (but a privation in a substance)

            3. Therefore, God did not create evil

3.2 Philosophical Solution for the Problem of Evil

It is not logically contradictory to say an all powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions.

First, who's to say we are good people? The question should be not "Why do bad things happen to good people?" but "Why do good things happen to bad people?"  The question is not why the glass of water is half empty but why it is half full, for all goodness is gift.

Second, who's to say suffering is all bad? Life without it would produce spoiled brats and tyrants, not joyful saints. Rabbi Abraham Heschel says simply, "The man who has not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?" Suffering can work for the greater good of wisdom. It is not true that all things are good, but it is true that "all things work together for good to those who love God." 

Third, who's to say we have to know all God's reasons? Who ever promised us all the answers? Animals can't understand much about us; why should we be able to understand everything about God? The obvious point of the Book of Job, the world's greatest exploration of the problem of evil, is that we just don't know what God is up to. What a hard lesson to learn: Lesson One, that we are ignorant, that we are infants!

According to Bible evil is impermanent therefore:

1. God is all good and desires to defeat evil

2. God is all powerful and is able to defeat evil

3. Evil is not yet defeated

4. Therefore, God will defeat evil someday

The thing need to be done is that we must in God's timing.

CHAPTER 4: THE DEFEAT OF EVIL

There are three fundamental biblical affirmations that we must hold together in wrestling with the problem of evil. Each of them is an essential part of the teaching of the Bible. Each of them is clear and comprehensible when considered on its own, but our main challenge is in holding them together in our minds and in our faith when our struggles with suffering and evil in this world seem to contradict one or another of them. They are: the utter “evilness” of evil; the utter goodness of God; and the utter sovereignty of God.[21]

4.1 The Utter Evilness of Evil

The Bible simply has no truck with evil. The Bible does not accommodate evil into a framework of acceptable realities, as many forms of religious worldview did and still do. Evil is never “just the way things are”. It is never “all for the best in the end”. Nor is it the best we can hope for in “the best of all possible worlds”. Evil is not intrinsically “necessary” (in the sense that the world never was or never could be free from evil), even though the Bible certainly allows for the fact that in a fallen world evil sometimes necessarily has to be done. Now, although we may be right to point out that moral freedom only makes sense when we have a real possibility of choosing evil rather than good, that does not make our free will the cause of evil’s origin.

Evil cannot be dismissed simply as “the price God was willing to pay” or “the risk God was willing to take” for allowing us the gift of free will. This provides no explanation for the origin or cause of evil, and it tends to reduce the evilness of evil by giving it a validated place in God’s moral universe. On the contrary, evil is uncompromisingly rejected and denounced, and categorically doomed to ultimate destruction and eradication. It is the total negation of all that God is and wishes, hostile to the life, blessing, and goodness that God creates. Any “solution” to the problem of evil that makes evil less evil than the Bible says it actually is, is no solution at all for the Christian. So there must be no compromise or confusion at this point.[22]

4.2 The Utter Goodness of God

Habakkuk, who struggled mightily with the problem of evil and the justice of God, declares that God cannot even look upon evil, let alone compromise with it. Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Hab 1:13 John agrees: “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Many other Bible texts affirm this about God. There is no admixture of evil within him. Evil has no foothold in the person or character of God. On the contrary, he is utterly, primally, exclusively, and eternally good.

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deut. 32:4

Therefore, although the Bible clearly indicates that God is sovereign over the reality and operation of evil within creation in such a way that he can include existing evil realities within the accomplishment of his purposes, God himself is not the origin, author, or cause of evil in itself. This is an important distinction. God’s sovereign use or control of things, events, or people who are evil does not compromise his own essential goodness. For as we will see, all such overriding exercise of God’s power over evil is for purposes determined by his goodness.

4.3 The Utter Sovereignty of God

The will of God remains sovereign over all created reality. This is a repeated biblical affirmation. It generates much mystery and theological struggle, particularly in relation to the equally biblical affirmation of human responsibility for the choices we make as free moral agents. Nevertheless, the Bible affirms that nothing happens in the universe outside the sovereign knowledge of God, whether by his decree or his permission. That single will of the one Creator God, indeed, is what constitutes the fact that we live in a universe, not a chaos. And that sovereign will of God can encompass even the alien force of evil, ruling and overruling it in such a way that in the end God’s will prevails. This is affirmed in the Bible even when the things that happen include disaster and many things that we would see as evil. Theologians at this point usually need to make distinctions between the decretive will of God (what God directly wills and wishes to happen) and the permissive will of God (what God permits to happen even if it includes the reality of evil in our fallen world). This is not the place to get into the finer points of that discussion, for the ultimate point still stands. Either way, God remains in overall sovereign charge of the outcomes of history and its final goal.

4.4 All Three Truths in the Story of Joseph

There are some places in the Bible where these three great affirmations are woven together to show how closely they are related. One is the story of Joseph. It illustrates human wickedness at its worst brothers planning a brother’s murder and then betraying him into slavery; sons lying to a father. These are terrible evils and there was no excuse or justification for them. But the same story also illustrates the goodness of God in using these circumstances to good ends, preserving life and bringing blessing in spite of constantly contrary circumstances. And above all, the whole narrative is explicitly interpreted as a display of the sovereign will of God behind human choices and actions.[23] So in this one story we have the evil of evil, the goodness of God, and the sovereignty of God, all operating in the same arena.

At the moment when Joseph made his identity known to his shocked brothers, Joseph utters these remarkable reflections:

Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.” Gen. 45:4 – 8. Later, when the brothers are still fearful that their initial crime will rebound on their heads (ironically compounding it with yet another lie), Joseph sums up the situation in this profound theological affirmation: “Joseph said to them, ‘Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives’ ” (Gen. 50:19 – 20).

There is no softening of the evil intent and action of the brothers or of their moral responsibility. Their actions are inexcusably evil. Yet the goodness and sovereignty of God not only overruled their intentions but used them for the ultimate good of saving life.

It is important not to suggest that God “turned the evil into good”, or that because it all worked out in the end, it wasn’t really so bad after all. The actions of the brothers were evil. Period. Evil in intent and evil in execution. But God demonstrated his sovereignty by showing that he can take what is done as an existing evil in the world and use it to bring about his own good purposes. God remains good, and God remains sovereign.

4.5 All Three Truths Converge at the Cross

When we come to the cross, we find the same three great truths supremely at work. The powerful combination shows us just how essential it is to put the cross at the centre of all our wrestling with the problem of evil. Like Joseph, Peter sums up what happened at the cross by seeing the wicked actions of morally responsible people under the sovereign knowledge and will of God, and by seeing the goodness of God’s saving love whereby even those who perpetrated the act can find God’s forgiveness: People of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. Acts 2:22 – 24.

A moment later Peter holds out the good news of God’s grace and forgiveness: Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:36-38 so all three central truths are summarized here as Peter explains the cross in terms of human evil, God’s sovereignty, and God’s goodness. First, the cross exposed the utter depths of human and satanic evil – in hatred, injustice, cruelty, violence, and murder. All of this was hurled at Jesus, with no justification or excuse. Jesus died at the hands of “wicked men”. At the cross, evil is seen at its worst for what it is and does. Second, the cross happened fully in accordance with God’s sovereign will from eternity. It is the supreme moment in history (which defines and enables all other such moments) in which God caused the wrath of human beings to praise him, somehow building the evil intent and actions of free creatures into his own sovereign purpose of loving redemption. Third, the cross also expressed the utter goodness of God, pouring out his mercy and grace in self-giving love. At the cross God drew the worst sting of human and satanic evil and concentrated it on himself in the person of his Son, in order that it should be borne in the full depth of all its consequences and thereby release forgiveness. We will say more on this later.

CONCLUSION

The investigation that we made of the problem of evil shows that almost of all evil effects end up into death. Because unwanted occurrences in the world are considered as evil, for instance, earthquake, tsunami, tornadoes, famine, thunder, wars, deception, brutal subjugation, abortion, accidents etc. Therefore, there cannot be a worst and ultimate evil in the world then losing a life, and any evil effect makes no sense for a dead man. In other words in this mortal world death is the end for everything. So the best solution for the problem of evil is death. Theistic article deny the existence of God because evil exist, and it causes death. It means, for a theist, there is no death if there is no evil but in reality death is the fact in the world and it has a certain reason for its existence. Thus, everyone who has born in this world has to die. Therefore, weather you face the evil or not but you are going to face the death certainly. Therefore, if everyone has to die weather early or late by evil effects or without evil effects than why we blame only evil for the causes of the death. The essence of the argument ones leads into the depression rather than hopefulness. Therefore, here is good news and the complete solution for problem of evil for everyone those who fear evil and death from Him who is all good and all powerful; the Jesus Christ who has conquered the death forever and became first fruit among all by rising himself from death on third day after His crucifixion (1 Cor.15:3-5). Never ever anyone in the entire history of mankind rose from the death except Jesus Christ. In John.11:25 Jesus says, I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. In John 6:51 He says, I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever… offered so the world may live. In Rev1:18 He says, I am the living one who died. Look, I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave. For me and I hope for everyone Jesus is the perfect solution for the problem of evil and the death. Because by believing in Him I need not to fear death and evil which is the major threatening and the cause of depression for the people in this world.  It does not mean I will not, I will in the flesh cause by evil but also I will live after death because Jesus lives.

Now my response for the existence of God and His goodness:

The concept of good is exist in the mind of people that’s by every person is able to observe the effect of bad occurring in the atmosphere of his good. The problem of evil is observable; it means it is not constant and permanent event that occurs all the time but sometime. What it means? Simply evil exist sometime whereas goodness exist most of the time. Therefore, the higher percentage of the population of the world is optimistic and theist. Mostly people will say if you ask them that there was a tine their life when they experienced real goodness, and that is the reason all the time people look after good and want to maintain goodness in personal life, in family, in relationship, in community, in cities and nation. Why people want to do that, because people experience goodness in day to day life. How anyone can experience goodness when goodness does not exist on only evil? The only possible solution can be given for the existence of goodness in the conscience of mankind is God. Therefore God exist. The form for the simplification: 

            1. God is good

            2. Good is not exist only evil

            3. Therefore God is not exist

            4. But people experience good at list once in the life time

            5. Therefore people like to live in all positive and good occurrence   atmospheres

            6. Therefore people long for good

            7. How people can long for good when good is not exist only evil

            8. But still people long for good

            9. Because people experience good at list once in the life time

            10. Therefore good is exist

            11. God is good

            12. Therefore God is exist

---

[1] Charles Taliaferro and Elsa J. Marty, Eds. A Dictionary Of Philosophy Of Religion (New York London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010), 84.

[2] Peter D. Santina, Fundamentals of Buddhism (Srilankaramayana Buddhist Temple Singapore: Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc., 1984), 28.

[3] Norman L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 15-17.

[4] Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1997), 322.

[5] Ernest Valea, "The problem of evil in world religions", http://www.comparativereligion.com/evil.html, (accessed on 11/06/15).

[6] Beth Davies Stofka, “ Suffering and the Problem of Evil” http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Beliefs/Suffering-and-the-Problem-of-Evil.html (accessed on 20/04/2015). 

[7]John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd Ed. (Great Britain: Routledge, 1990), 310.

[8] David Hume, "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4583,  Project Gutenberg, (accessed on 12/06/15).

[9]  “Problem of Evil,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil (accessed on 20/04/15).

[10] Emmanuel Kant, “Problem of Evil,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil (accessed on 20/04/15).

[11] William Hatcher, “Problem of Evil,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil (accessed on 20/04/15).

[12] Augustine, The Confessions Of Saint Augustine, Translated by Edward Bouverie Pusey, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/aug01.htm, (accessed on 10/06/15).

[13] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Hand Book of Christian Aologetics (USA: IVP Academic, 1994), 132.

[14] Randy Alcorn, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil (USA: Multnomah Books, 2009), 243.

[15] Mortimer J. Adler, The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom, Vol 1 (USA: Doubleday, 1958), 127.

[16] Kreeft, Hand Book of Christian Aologetics, 137.

[17] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 407.

[18] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 407.

[19] . Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 409.

[20] . Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 406.

[21] Christopher J. H. Wright, The God I Don’t Understand (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 57.

[22] Wright, The God I Don’t Understand, 58.

[23] Wright, The God I Don’t Understand, 58.