The first “problem of evil,” as far as atheist/theist debates are concerned is the fact that atheists define “evil” based on rationality. This means that they cannot logically formulate an argument for the problem of evil without first providing an acceptable definition of evil. Some make appeals to the fact that evil, let us refer to it in the form of suffering, is a tangible, physical sensation. Yet, this amounts to a bio-organism’s subjective interpretation of sensory input.
Two pop-culture musical groups had something to say in this area: Jane’s Addiction sang, “Ain’t no wrong now, ain’t no right. Only pleasure and pain” (from the song “Ain’t no Right”). The Red Hot Chili Peppers followed this up by singing, “I like pleasure spiked with pain” (from the song “Aeroplane”). Thus, these modern day philosophers took us from morality based on sensory input to the recognition that we are, in reality, speaking of interpretation of said input.
The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) stated the classic form of the problem of evil. His syllogism may be stated:
1. If a perfectly good God exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist.
The logic behind the argument, again attributed to Epicurus, runs thus:
1. “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.
2. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
3. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
4. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
Evil is indeed a very difficult problem. This is not because it is philosophically or emotionally difficult but because it is theologically difficult. In seeking to respond to the problem of evil we are pitting real fairytales versus abstract concepts. Faith versus intellect makes for an uneven fight—how do you argue against dogma? Thus, responses to the problem of evil are generally seen as heartless or dry-as-dust atheist theorizing.
Biblically and philosophically, Epicurus’ first syllogistic point is false since a perfectly good God who allows stupidity can exist and thus, his syllogism fails.
Epicurus’ logic behind the argument fails because he proposes a restricted number of options—it is a false dichotomy.
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
or He can, but does not want to.
Yet, biblically and philosophically a third option is that God wants to abolish evil and can, but He functions on his own timing and He has not done it yet because He cannot abolish evil.
Note also, that God did not create the world with evil, only with an evil snake; it is the result of sin, and is a privation of good, which is a privation of evil.