Problem of Evil: the Logical Problem Answered

As I mentioned before, the logical or deductive form of the argument from evil attempts to demonstrate a contradiction in the theist's beliefs that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God and evil exist at the same time.  The logical challenge can and has been answered decisively, starting with Alvin Plantinga in his famous book, God, Freedom, and Evil. 

Keep in mind atheist J.L. Mackie's argument from my earlier post, which can be outlined this way: 

1. God exists and is omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. A perfectly good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.
3. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, God does not exist. 

We can respond in three ways:

1. First, the atheist has the burden of proof to show that the theist should accept premise 2 and 3 above. 
2. Second, the theist can reply in the following way to premise 2:  It is logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting all the evils there are.  Greg expands on this HERE. 
3. Thirdly, the theist can reply in the following way to premise 3:  It is logically possible that God could not create free creatures who never sin (known as the Free Will Defense).  Greg expands on this HERE.

Remember, in answering the logical problem all the theist has to do is show the logical possibility of the propositions in question.  We have done that (see Plantinga's account for a full treatment) and thus, the logical problem of evil is defeated.  According to prominent atheist William Rowe,

"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God.  No one, I think, has suceeded in establishing such an extravagant claim.  Indeed...there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God."

The overwhelming majority of philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, agree with Rowe's assessment concerning the logical argument and that is why the evidential argument from evil is where the real action is at. 

Comments

[Rick Howard]

The theist could additionally argue against the 4th premise because it makes certain assumptions about God’s timing and methodology. Evil is currently present, meaning it was allowed and has not been eliminated at this point. It is a mistake to assume that evil will not be adequately dealt with in the future.

The 3rd premise supports this in that an unlimited omnipotent being can accomplish the elimination of evil over time if He so chooses. Instant elimination would focus on righteous judgment on the world as a whole (i.e. Noah’s flood) whereas a long-term elimination would focus on God’s mercy and patience in seeking evil mankind to turn to Him before a final judgment.

Therefore…
1. God exists and is omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. God’s plan will eliminate evil.
2. A perfectly good being always will eliminate evil as far as it can.
3. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do (or how and when).
4. Evil will no longer exist.
5. Therefore, God does exist.