The Logical Limits of God: Part II

The Problem of Evil

Happy Tuesday my friends! Welcome to part two of the ‘Logical Limits of God’ series. Last week we went over some of Logic’s basic principles and used them in discussing Euthyphro’s dilemma (here is the link if you missed it: Part 1). This week we’ll continue examining God’s existence by asking the question of whether God and Evil can truly co-exist — philosophers call this ‘The Problem of Evil’.

Logic Review

But first, let’s review some logic…

1.    Every argument has a premise/s and a conclusion

2.    An argument is valid if and, only if, its conclusion follows from its premises —If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true

3.    A sound argument is a valid one, with true premises and a true conclusion

Consider this argument:

Premise 1: If lemons are sweet, then robots have souls.

Premise 2: Lemons are sweet.

Conclusion: Therefore, Robots have souls.

Is this a valid argument?... Surprisingly, it is! You may ask: Joe, how in the world could this be a valid argument if lemons are sour and robots are obviously soulless?

The answer is that validity has nothing to do with truth. Truth makes an argument sound; form is what makes an argument valid.

Here is a simplified version of the same argument:

P1: If A then B

P2: A

C: Therefore, B

You can replace A and B with anything, and the argument remains valid. For instance:

P1: If the animal has feathers, then it is a bird

P2: The animal has feathers

C: The animal is a bird.

This argument is not only valid but also sound (in most cases) because its premises are true (again, in most cases).

Exercise: This one is slightly more difficult. I’ll provide the answer next Tuesday— comment whether it is valid and why!

P1. If there is life on Mars, then there is water on Mars.  

P2. If Mars has ice, then it has water. 

P3. There is ice on Mars.

C. Therefore, there is life on Mars

Valid or Invalid?

How Logic Works in Philosophy

Now that we have a better grasp on how logic itself works, it's essential to understand its role in philosophical discourse.

Philosophy is typically made of arguments and counterarguments. For instance:

Person A: “I see the water as blue. What I see is true; therefore, the water is blue.”

Person B: "Our vision can be deceived by optical illusions. If sight can be deceived, it shouldn’t be trusted for truth; therefore, we can’t be certain the water is blue."

Person B challenges Person A’s second premise, pointing out that our senses can be unreliable. In response, Person A might adjust their argument, present a counter-counterargument, or even concede. This process of debate can continue indefinitely, and often, no synthesis or consensus is reached.

Philosophy, in this sense, is like a mental boxing match—a series of punches and counterpunches, arguments and counterarguments. Naturally, this dynamic can lead to conflict, especially when dealing with topics such as the existence of God.

Philosophy asks us to put a magnifying glass up to our deepest beliefs and assess whether they are justifiable— it’s uncomfortable. Yet, these uneasy moments of disagreement are key to growth. This process leaves us with a sturdier intellectual foundation, allowing us to live a more authentic, thoughtful, and examined life. Iron sharpens iron, as they say.

The Logical Problem of Evil

This problem essentially states that the existence of evil in this world makes it unreasonable for us to believe in God— think of this as the punch that started the fight. The ‘Problem of Evil’ is one of the best examples of this argumentative back and forth— a process that philosophers call the ‘dialectic’.

The basic argument for the ‘Logical Problem of Evil’ goes like this:

P1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

P2: If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5. Evil exists.

P6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power, knowledge, or desire to eliminate all evil.

C. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

In other words, if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, He would stop all evil from happening, but since evil exists in the world, then such a God does not exist.

Initial Responses

If you don’t agree with this conclusion, you have a few options. A common approach is giving up one of God’s omni-qualities. Either God doesn’t know evil exists, isn’t powerful enough to stop it, or isn’t actually all good. Some even point to biblical evidence suggesting God can be angry, jealous, and cruel; He transformed a woman into a pillar of salt simply because she turned around, for crying out loud. In other words, you are ok losing some key attributes, as long as God still exists.  

However, if you’re unwilling to compromise on these qualities, despite the scriptural evidence, another approach is to refute the argument as a whole. You might argue that God’s reasons for allowing evil are beyond human comprehension, a position known as Skeptical Theism. Just as a child may not understand their parent's decisions, we may not grasp God's reasons for permitting evil, undermining the argument.

However, like one of the horns of Euthyphro’s Dilemma, Skeptical Theism makes God’s decisions seem arbitrary and immune to judgment. Again, If God commanded murder, would we be obligated to do it simply because we can’t comprehend His reasons?

A parable thought of by John Wisdom illustrates another weakness of Skeptical Theism:

Imagine two explorers come upon a clearing in the jungle with both flowers and weeds. One says, “Someone had to have gardened this plot”, while the other disagrees. They keep watch, but no gardener appears. The believer suggests the gardener is invisible, so they set up a barbed-wire fence, electrify it, and bring in bloodhounds, but still, nothing happens—no shocks, no disturbances, no scents. Yet the believer insists that there is a gardener, just that the gardener is “invisible, intangible, immune to electric shocks, has no scent and makes no sound”. Eventually, the frustrated non-believer asks, "How is your undetectable gardener any different from one that doesn’t exist at all?"

Can you guess who the gardener is? This parable points to the problem of unfalsifiable beliefs – claims that technically can’t be proven wrong. Claiming a gardener exists but is impossible to detect is similar to saying God exists but that we can’t understand His ways. Both are impossible to disprove, making them no different from simply believing in something that isn’t there.

Theodicies: Attempts to Reconcile God and Evil

While Skeptical theism does an inadequate job at responding to the ‘Problem of Evil’, another way to defend the existence of God is through a ‘theodicy’—an attempt at making an omni-God and evil somehow fit in the same world.

One of the most well-known is the Free Will Theodicy developed by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. It suggests that evil is a necessary result of free will and that a world with free will is more valuable than an all-good world without freedom. God knows, can, and wants to stop evil but chooses not to because free will is more important. If God were to prevent people from doing evil, people would no longer be free. Pretty strong counterpunch.

The problem with this objection, however, is that it only addresses moral evil—the evil resulting from human choices. What about suffering that has nothing to do with free choices? Like Natural Evils— hurricanes, earthquakes, cancer, birth defects, lactose intolerance. Why would God allow these?

This question leads us to our next theodicy: The Soul-Making Theodicy. This view argues that God created us unfinished and placed us into a harsh world to develop the character needed for the world to come—like a boot camp. It is easy for us to think of hardships and struggles—such as the loss of a loved one, personal failures, poverty, or periods of loneliness—that have made us stronger, more compassionate, or more resilient. These moments of adversity, while difficult, are seen as opportunities for growth, preparing us for future challenges and shaping our moral and spiritual development.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

Both theodicies present compelling arguments as to why evil, as a general concept, exists, largely addressing the ‘logical problem of evil’. However, they don’t do a good job explaining why so much and so much unnecessary, horrific evil exists — this is called the “Evidential Problem of Evil”.

This version of the argument presents a great challenge to the Soul-Making theodicy. If this world were truly a boot camp to make us better people, why wouldn’t God just give us the minimum dosage of evil needed, like some injuries, personal failures, and breakups? There are many evils, the holocaust, human trafficking, or prolonged end-of-life suffering, that seem to offer no redeeming qualities for 'soul-making’ or character-building.  

This view also doesn’t account for the immense suffering of young, innocent children and of animals. Both groups suffer, quite unnecessarily, either from terrible diseases or cruelty, without clear benefit. Not only that but several young lives are cut short without getting the chance to cultivate their souls, raising the question: why do only some of us get those chances?

This philosophical conundrum has been debated for centuries and will undoubtedly continue to spark discussion, as new arguments and counterarguments emerge. The problem of evil forces us to grapple with difficult questions about suffering, justice, and the nature of belief itself. It challenges both believers and non-believers to think critically about the foundations of their worldviews, whether that means reconciling the existence of a good and omnipotent God with the reality of evil or finding meaning in a world where such a God might not exist.

All this exploration and research has led me to reflect deeply on my own relationship with faith. Surprisingly I’ve come across some compelling arguments in favor of God’s existence that I am excited to share. So, it looks like there will indeed be a part 3 of this series — so stick around for some more insights from your average Joe.