James Walters

Phil of Religion
Final Paper on Evil
December 21st, 2015
Evil has been and continues to be one of the most prominently used proofs against the
existence of God. Most non-theist arguments come from the challenging of arguments for the
existence of God. The problem of evil does a good job a disproving Gods existence in and of
itself. The argument of evil provides strong evidence against Gods morality and omnipotence.
The argument from evil comes in a form of a paradox. A paradox essentially proposes factual
statements, that aim to disprove or create redundancies in themselves. Epicurus put forth a
paradox in order to disprove God, by stating that God cannot exist as long as evil exists in the
world. Is He willing to prevent evil, but is not able? Then He is not impotent. Is He able, but
not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil (Pojman,
67). Epicuruss Paradox puts forth three statements, that seem to all hold true by themselves. God
is perfectly good, God is all-powerful, and evil exist. (Pojman, 69). The question comes from the
fact the evil does exist. A God that could do anything, and whom also commits no moral wrong,
would logically not allow pain and suffering to exists in the world.
God is all-powerful has been a cornerstone of Christian theology since the early
centuries of the church (Pojman, 69). There is little to no debate about Gods ability and what
he can and cannot do. The Judeo-Christian God has the ability to do whatever He pleases, for He
is not bound by time, or materiality. So why then would a God that had the ability to prevent all
evil allow it to persist? Some philosophers and theologians have relinquished this attribute of
omnipotence to get God off the hook they accept a limited God (Pojman, 69). Essentially

they claim that God cannot do anything He pleases because He too is bound by logic. He cannot
create contradictions or be redundant. Pojman discusses a view point that if God was able to do
anything then we would not be creatures with free will (one of the arguments against evil) (69).
This is because He would know how we would act, and his knowledge of how we would act in a
particular situation would then make our future already pre-determined. So why then do we pray
and worship His power and greatness? Even if God is not all-powerful, he certainly must be
exceedingly powerful, he should have been able to prevent evil in the world (Pojman, 70). If He
is not, then Christianity has no real moral or ethical grounds to call for us to worship a limited
deity. We must assume that God is all-powerful because that is why he is worthy of our praise.
The next claim is that God is perfectly good. This is claim is agreed upon because a god does
not exist without complete moral goodness. Gods goodness is contingent on his existence.
God cannot do evil and still remain God (Pojman, 70). If God were to commit an act of evil,
then one of two things would occur. Either that act would be no longer considered an act of evil
because God is from where we derive or moral law (according to divine command theory, 155),
or he would no longer by definition be the Judeo-Christian God.
Finally, the last claim is that there exists evil in the world. Anyone can attest that bad things
happen, and that every day harm is done. Opinions may differ on how much evil is done, and if
the good will outweigh the bad, but the fact that evil exists is irrefutable. The millions of
humans who have starved to death or died victims or torture, bloody battles, the abandoned and
abused and aborted can all testify: evil exists in abundance (Pojman, 70). There are however
two different forms of evil, moral and natural. Moral evil covers all those bad things for which
humans are morally responsible while Natural evil stands for those events that nature does of her
own Accord such as Hurricanes, tornadoes, natural disasters (Pojman, 71). Evil occurs in many

different ways and it is something that everyone goes through. It still remains the question then
how a moral, all-powerful God could allow evil to exist.
There are two main points against the argument from evil: the free will defense and the
theodicy defense. Both try to justify why evil is actually good for our creation, and why evil is a
necessary feature for this world. The free will defense essentially tries to state that God had to
create a world with free creatures, and that if we were limited to only doing good, then we would
not truly be free. This defense adopts the libertarian view of freedom of will, that is humans are
free to choose between good and evil acts (Pojman, 72). If this view is taken, it makes sense
that God would not want us to be stuck in one way of acting, it is good for us to be able to
choose from right and wrong. God could never ensure that all beings would be good and also
allow us to make our own decisions. It is logically impossible for God to create free creatures
and guarantee that they will never do evil (Pojman, 71). The free will defense does give up
some of Gods all-powerfulness however, and accepts that he is somewhat limited in his abilities.
It is best summed up by saying this world though not perfect, it is the best an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent God could do (Pojman, 72).
The theodicy defense defends Gods power more than that of the free will defense, and
instead tries to state that Gods allowing of evil in the world in constructive and not a bad thing.
The theodicy defense goes even further and argues that all evil will contribute to the greater
good, so that this world, despite appearances, is the best of all possible worlds (Pojman, 73).
Supporters of this defense agree that God allowed evil in order to allow us to make our own good
decisions, and that this world gives us room to improve ourselves and be constructive. It argues
that without evil we would have no progression to make, and God could not allow this to be. It
also argues that without evil, we would never know what it is to be good. Without a comparison

it is impossible to see what is right, because right would be the only option. Concepts like
courage, honesty, love, benevolence, and kindness would make no sense because no one could
do any harm, nor would there be need for heroism or saintliness (Pojman,74). These defenses
although they seem to be sound, do have their problems.
One of the flaws with the free will defense is that it is only able to hold up with a
libertarian view of free will. There are however, two different views of free will that hold that we
are not able to make our own decisions. Pojman discusses compatibilism and determinism and
how they state that that humans have diminished agency before God, analogous to a small childs
ability to act freely against an adult (72). These two views of free will state that ultimately under
Gods law, we only have one way of acting, and that any deviance from this path is not an option.
This would give up the notion that we are free to make our own decisions and therefore would
ruin the free will defense. Another problem that Pojman discusses is that we are not free because
we are not responsible for what we are. To be really free and responsible for our actions, we
must be the cause of what we are, no one is the cause of ones self, so no one is really free and
responsible (Pojman, 73). If we are not free and responsible, then we cannot be held responsible
for our actions. If these point are true, it becomes illogical that God would create a world with
evil in it.
Some problems with the theodicy defense state that God has allowed an unnecessary
amount of suffering in this world, and that these acts of evil were never needed to show us what
good is. Were Auschwitz, My Lai, and Buchenwald and the torture chamber really necessary for
soul building (Pojman, 75). Extreme acts of evil like these seem needless to our growth. They
are so extreme that we can wonder why God would not intervene and prevent these acts of terror.
They seem like exaggerated lessons that couldve been stopped our worked around. A good

teacher can educate and help build character without resorting to torture and brutality (Pojman,
75). A final point to look at is why natural evil exist and why God could not have at least
prevented these evils. Natural evil does not contribute to our progression as people and could be
done without. So why then did God create a world where thousands can die and even more can
suffer from loss, when these acts of evil lead us nowhere, or to no growth?
The argument from evil has been the non-theist advocate against the existence of God for
a long time. It is the argument which in itself helps to disprove Gods existence. The argument
from evil states that God is perfectly good, God is all-powerful, and evil exist. (Pojman, 69).
This paradox questions why a good, morally perfect good would allow evil to exist. The free will
defense and the theodicy defense try to defend God, by stating that evil in the world is necessary,
and is need to build our character, and help us see what good is. Many argue however that all the
pain and suffering is unneeded and pointless, and the same means could be achieved without the
evil. I believe that the argument from evil does a great job of trying to disprove good existence,
despite the defenses against it. To me, an omnibenevolent God would prefer a world of good
over a world of freedom.

Works Cited

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion. Long Grove: Waveland, 2001. Print.

Presentation of both sides

What is a Paradox?
Epicurean paradox
Side a
Argument from evil
Side b
The free will defense
What it states
The theodicy defense
What it states
Problems
Problems of all the arguments
Conclusion