“Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions”

– Aristotle, Metaphysics, II (III), I.

The problem of Evil is a difficult one. It is the single greatest theoretical problem facing the three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Each agrees with the following premises: 1) God is all-powerful; 2) God is perfectly good; 3) Evil exists. It does not seem possible that all three can be true at the same time. One or more of the above statements must be false. It simply cannot be true that a Being that wishes there to be no evil (i.e. perfectly good) and has the ability to rid existence of evil (an aspect of being all-powerful) would allow evil to exist (as clearly is the case). This is the Problem of Evil in a nutshell.

It has been said that without the same set of definitions, nothing can be agreed on. Therefore, before approaching the problem of evil one must establish the ground rules, the definitions. All of the monotheistic religions maintain that God is all-powerful, or omnipotent. This is agreed upon universally. What is not universally agreed upon is exactly what is meant by omnipotence. Many believe that omnipotence is defined as “having no limits on what one can do”. However, this is not the definition that theologians use in conjunction with omnipotence. Ask yourself the following question: “Can God create a round square?” If He were able to, then the square would not consist of “a planal polygon consisting of four lines of equal length intersecting at right angles.” This however, is the definition of a square; therefore, the object created would not be a square at all. On the other hand, if the object created did consist of “a planal polygon consisting of four lines of equal length intersecting at right angles”; then it could not be a circle. The definitions of a square and a circle are diametrically opposed. You cannot mix the two; their very natures are mutually exclusive. This is an example of a logical impossibility. Since God cannot make a round square, logical impossibilities are a limit to what God can do.

Does this mean that there cannot be a God that is omnipotent? Is an all-powerful God a logical impossibility? This is not the case. The limits placed on God by logic are not limits at all in regards to omnipotence. Instead, the rules of logic demonstrate the behavior of the universe that God has set up. The God of the Muslims, Hebrews, and Christians is a God of reason, not of nonsense. An existence where round squares were possible would be a universe without definition. Words would have no corresponding reason behind their meanings. It would be a universe without existence, for to exist is to be defined. The fact that God is a God of reason only describes Him; it does not put limits on what He can do. Perhaps a better definition of omnipotence is “the ability to do anything logically possible”. This solves the paradox of logical impossibility in relation to the omnipotence of God.

Next one needs to turn to the next issue, “What is evil?” Is evil “any pain that is felt by a conscious being?” The following are examples of evil: the willful murder of a young child; a lie told to get one’s self out of a bind; the “ethnic cleansing” of a tribe by their rivals. These statements seem to agree with the above-proposed definition of evil. A closer examination, however, will reveal the true definition of evil. In each statement, a choice was made; a choice that went against what is considered the right mode of behavior. This mode, this ideal way of behaving, is what the monotheists call morality, and it is given to us by God. Pain is not equal to evil. Instead, evil is a measure of a choice, a choice that runs contrary to morality. Using this definition, evil is still the opposite of good; however, not in the sense that opposed good. Instead, evil is the absence of good. Good is to evil as heat is cold. Evil is only the measure of good, assigned to an action or agent, describing its deficiency of good.

If evil is the absence of good, then what is good? What is this morality we feel calling to us from inside? To borrow from Lewis, we know that our sense of good does not come from our instinct. For what we naturally want to do is aligned against that which we know to be right. If our notion of morality springs not from instinct, then perhaps it springs from reason. However, reason alone gives rise to cruelty. If reason were to be applied in its purest form, the weak would be purged from our society in the interests of the community. Instead of arising naturally or being deduced, our basic notions of morality are imprinted upon us. This imprinting was done by God. Therefore, the objective standard from which good is measured is God. If so, the definition of good can be summarized as that which God finds good. Taking that definition for good, in its ultimate sense, good actions and agents are defined as those that are in line with morality, the God-given law of good imprinted on the hearts of men. This view of morality is called the “divine command theory.” The theory’s two largest weaknesses are a) that it gives one no way of judging God’s actions as good or evil and b) it is hard to demonstrate the dictation. The first objection is the only one that pertains here. That objection however is only surface deep. If God is an agent with choice, then God could theoretically choose to act against his own standard of what is good. Because God has given this standard to us in the form of a conscience, we as humans can pit the actions of God against God’s own standard.

The western religions maintain that God has imbued us with choice. We have been given the ability to choose the level of good in our actions, the ability to choose morality or reject it. This ability is ascribed to God creating humans as a “grand experiment.” That God wanted to create a race of beings with the ability to choose to worship God. It is said that without choice, true love is impossible. The inherent danger is that these beings can choose to reject morality, and thus create evil.

So far, our missing ingredient in the problem of evil has only been hinted at. It has been established that evil is the absence of good in a choice or choosing agent. Good has been defined as that which lies in congruence with the law of morality that has been laid upon our hearts by God. Omnipotence can be defined as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. What has not been mentioned is the nature of God’s love. The love of God is perfect. God is all-wise, all-loving, all-just, and all-powerful. If this is the case then it follows that the decision on how to handle the occurrence of evil would be the best possible solution. While it seems natural to us, as humans for God it immediately purge the world of any evil as soon as it happens, yet we observe that this is not the case. Does then the good, just God of the Torah, Qur’an, and Bible allow evil to spread like a disease, destroying His creation? God instead allows evil for a time, giving his beloved creations a chance to part from their ways. Evil is not left to dwell permanently; in the western scriptures evil is punished, it is purged. It is not a question of “if”, but a question of “when”.

After redefining the words omnipotence, evil, and good, and demonstrating the necessity of choice in free universe God’s nature seems to demand that He extract immediate justice on those who choose to go against him. However in His love for His creation, He waits for a while, pleads with it to choose morality. After a time, God deals with each choosing agent with His perfect justice. Thus, God deals with evil in due time in the Western formulation of theism. This is how the problem of Evil is solved.