Christians, Jews and Muslims accept the following propositions.
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is good.
3. There is real evil in the world.
The question proposed by Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then why the evil?
In other words the three propositions are not compatible or consistent with one another. Of course, one can avoid the dilemma by denying one of the propositions.
1. Is evil compatible with the existence of God (Perfect Goodness)?
Yes, because God may be limited in power. This answer was accepted by the personalist school at Boston University in the early part of the century.
2. Is evil compatible with an omnipotent, perfectly good God who created (First Cause) and designed the universe?
3. Can ALL of the evil be justified? Is this the best of all possible worlds? [Voltaire's Candide.]
Two and three together make up the classic problem of evil. And, the skeptic answers "NO!" to two and three, and claims that the existence of evil is disproof of the existence of God.
Some theologians (e.g., John Hick) state that the Christian answer must also do the following: (See Discussion by David Mayo)
4. Recognize that real evil exists; it is not illusion. He thus excludes Christian Science and relativism with respect to ethics. If you think that evil is merely relative or subjective, then perhaps there is no problem. But, if you are troubled by the slow painful death of a child - your child - then I think it will be hard to believe that evil is merely subjective or a matter of opinion.
5. Distinguish moral evil (attributable to humans) from natural evil (caused by the very nature of things) and account for both.
Proposed answers or justifications for the existence of evil.
1. Retribution - we deserve it! (Original Sin)
Perhaps, but God made us with all our weaknesses and faults. Is it really impossible to create free beings who are somewhat less inclined to give into our worst lusts and desires?
2. Humans have free will and choose evil.
See Mayo's critique of Hick. But also consider this: It is possible to go a day or so freely choosing the good. Yes, we could choose evil, but we just don't. Now if it is possible to have free beings who can go a day or two or a week or so, or even a month without choosing evil, then God could have created being with free choice who could choose evil, but never actually did. If you find this too much to swallow, then how about a God who created free beings who chose evil 20% less often than humans do. And, if 20% less, then why not 50% or 80%?
3. The Devil made me do it! Evil is a co-equal principle with Good.
A fairly tempting position, and some fundamentalist seem to be close to it. But, if God is omnipotent then surely he can get rid of the Devil. So, this position also accepts a limited God.
4. Evil is negative; it is merely the absence of good. (There really is no evil) - violates Hick's constraint see #4 above.
What grounds are there for saying this? Does it lessen the evil to call it a mere negation of the good. One might as well say that Evil is positive (and intense pain is pretty positive) and that good is the negative of evil.
5. Evil was created by God to test us. This world is a testing ground for the next.
Again, see Mayo's Critique of Hick.
6. Evil is only temporary; it all turns out good in the long run.
a) Pain and evil are no less worse just because they aren't eternal. So this is just an attempt to avoid the need to justify pain and suffering.b) Isn't it just as likely that the goods and pleasures of life are temporary and that it all turns out perfectly awful in the long run?
7. Evil may only look evil from a human point of view.
This is a clever way of saying evil isn't really evil. Oh yeah! Tell that to a mother whose child has just died a horrible and painful death. In addition, one can't have it both ways; that is claiming that God REALLY is Good, but that evil is merely relative to the human perspective.
8. Need evil as a contrast with good. There are several possible meanings to this.
a) We wouldn't know the meaning of the word "good" unless there were evil (or we knew the meaning of evil.)b) You could not experience the heights of pleasure and happiness without actually experiencing the depths of sadness and pain.
c) The enjoyment of life or the experience of pleasure is necessarily dependent on the possibility or capacity for experiencing sadness and pain.