I’ll be framing the problem of evil as anything in existence that is undesirable such as suffering, immorality, or disorder (chaos). I consider the existence of evil as self-evident and doesn’t require explanation outside of a philosophical exercise.
My beliefs about God were shaped by Anselm, Aquinas, and Aristotle in that it’s better to be good than bad, some kinds of good are better than others, and that one must conclude there necessarily exists an entity that is the most good – God.
Given certain assumptions, I believe that the Epicurean Dilemma most succinctly summarizes the problem of evil:
If God is willing to eradicate evil, but is unable to do so, he is not all powerful and therefore, cannot be God.
If God is able to eradicate evil, but is unwilling to do so, he is not good and therefore, cannot be God.
If God is both willing and able to eradicate evil, but does not, why is there still evil?
If God is both unwilling and unable to eradicate evil, he is not God.
Everyone I’ve posed this problem to have responded with one of two popular arguments: One, an argument from free agency and two, an argument from divine unknowability.
To me, the argument that God has given man free will to do good or to do evil, regardless of one’s position on determinism, is hollow. Man did not make a decision to collapse an impossibly distant star into a black hole that subsequently destroys everything that comes near it. I would consider such destruction or disorder as evil. If that’s too irrelevant, take into consideration a woman holding her baby dying of thirst pleading with God for a little rain that he never sends. What consequence of free will would God allow that a seemingly innocent baby would die of something as simple as thirst? Why would God allow that baby to ever be born in the first place? Even if such evil were the result of man’s free will, how could a most good God allow it as if out of spite?
The second argument is more Biblical as found in the book of Job, or book of Isaiah, or the book of Romans. It comes in such forms as “God has a plan,” or “God can use evil for good,” as Joseph’s words in the book of Genesis. This too I found to be hollow if for nothing else than my unwillingness to submit to a God who would cause pain. But really, the argument that God’s thoughts are beyond human comprehension is little comfort to the one unwillingly enduring the pain.
After many years of struggling through this problem off and on, I came to a terrifying realization: God can do whatever he wants and call it good. Human morality by its nature is inherited, meaning that God’s morality is higher regardless of how much we may protest. For example, I may cry foul at the extinction of entire species of animals due to God’s seemingly careless inaction. But they are God’s creation. He can do whatever he wants with them. I, like Job, may curse the day I was born because existence is suffering, but again, God did not require my agreement. He’s the one in charge. As Jonathan Edwards pointed out, I am but a sinner in the hands of an angry God.