The argument from evil claims that the existence and extent of suffering count against the existence of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Its force depends on whether evil is presented as logically incompatible with God or as evidence making God's existence improbable.
The Reasoning
The argument begins with the traditional classical theist conception of God:
- God is omnipotent, so God can prevent evil.
- God is omniscient, so God knows when evil occurs and how to prevent it.
- God is omnibenevolent, so God would want to prevent unnecessary evil.
- Evil and apparently pointless suffering exist.
- Therefore, such a God either does not exist or is less likely to exist.
Two forms must be distinguished:
| Form | Central claim | Strength of conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Logical problem of evil | The existence of any evil is logically inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. | Such a God cannot exist. |
| Evidential problem of evil | The quantity, intensity, or apparently gratuitous nature of suffering provides evidence against God. | Such a God's existence is improbable, not impossible. |
The argument includes both moral evil, caused by human choices, and natural evil, such as earthquakes, disease, and animal suffering. Natural evil is particularly difficult to explain through human free will.
Theists may offer a theodicy or defence. The free will defence argues that genuine freedom makes moral evil possible; soul-making theodicy argues that hardship enables moral and spiritual development. Critics respond that these explanations may not justify extreme or apparently gratuitous evil.
A common misconception is that the argument simply says, “Evil exists, so God does not.” Its actual reasoning targets the apparent tension between evil and God's traditionally defined attributes.
IB Exam Technique
For a question asking you to evaluate the argument, distinguish its logical and evidential forms, explain at least one theistic response, and assess whether that response accounts for both moral and natural evil. Avoid merely listing arguments: compare their assumptions and reach a justified conclusion.
