the problem of evil is also known as the epicurean dillema ,giving credit to the first person who came with this argument(epicurus). the original argument is the following:
s 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 cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
from the above,we can deduce another version
1.if god exists,he is good,thus willing to prevent evil
2.if god exists,he has the power to remove all evil
3.evil exists
4.therefore, either
a.no good god exists
b.no allpowerfull god exist
c.no god exists
* and by evil i mean objectively immoral deeds
as far as i've used this argument,i have never recieved a satosfactory counterclaim. i will list some arguments i heard that tried to counter the epicurean dillema
you need to experience the bad to appreciate the good
this is easily countered.
you do not need to experience murder,rape,abuse,etc to be glad you are not murdered,raped,abused,etc.
are you glad you're not physically abused?
were you physically abused?
so do you need to experience something bad to be glad that you have it better? no,simple as that
god gave us free will,and with that we have the choice to do evil or good
you can counter this argument from 2 sides
1. there is free will in heaven but no evil
so god could have removed evil without conflicting with free will
2.in some(maybe most) cases of objectively immoral actions,whether god interferes or not,the same or more persons their free will is limited and violated. take for example rape,abuse,murder,ect. wether god interferes to save the victim,one person's free will is violated.
and take dictatorships,witch burnings or the holocaust as example. if god killed intervened ,one person's free will is violated instead of many more. so if a god exists,he is favouring evil,not good.
3.free will that is imposed on someone is self defeating. if god gave us free will,he didnt give us the choice if we wanted free will or not,so in the ens he violated free will You are the 175th visitor
