In Lesson 1, you explored natural and moral evil, and how different traditions respond to suffering. In this lesson, you'll dive deeper into one of philosophy's most profound challenges: the logical problem of evil. You'll examine the apparent contradiction between God's nature (omnipotent and omnibenevolent) and the existence of evil, and explore some of the key philosophical responses philosophers have developed over centuries.
Try to answer each question without looking at the answers. The timer above is set for 5 minutes—work at your own pace, but try to keep moving.
The Problem of Evil is a logical puzzle. It asks: How can the following three statements all be true at the same time?
If God is all-powerful, God can prevent any evil. If God is all-loving, God would want to prevent any evil. Yet evil and suffering are clearly present in our world. So either God cannot prevent evil (not omnipotent), or God doesn't want to prevent evil (not omnibenevolent), or evil doesn't really exist (but this seems obviously false).
Important: This trilemma is commonly misattributed to the ancient philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BCE). However, there is no evidence that Epicurus formulated this argument. The earliest surviving version comes from later sources. The argument became famous through David Hume's 18th-century work.
David Hume (1711–1776) was a Scottish philosopher and historian, one of the greatest empiricists in Western philosophy. He was deeply sceptical about many traditional religious arguments and used logic to challenge them.
Published posthumously in 1779, this work presents conversations between three characters discussing God's existence and nature. One of the most powerful exchanges focuses on the problem of evil and whether the world shows evidence of divine design.
Hume argued that if we look at the world objectively, we see a mixture of good and evil, design and chaos. The presence of unnecessary suffering—especially the suffering of innocent creatures—is hard to reconcile with the idea of a perfect, all-powerful creator. Why would such a God create a world with so much pointless pain?
Hume didn't claim this proves God doesn't exist, but he showed that the apparent design in nature doesn't necessarily point to the God of traditional theism.
Philosophers and theologians have developed several responses to the logical problem of evil. Here are three of the most important:
Key idea: Moral evil (caused by human choices) is the price of human free will, which is a great good.
If God created humans with genuine free will—the real ability to choose between right and wrong—then God must allow for the possibility of moral evil. A world in which humans are forced to always choose good is not a world of free choice; it's a world of puppets.
God could have created a world with no free will and no moral evil, but such a world would be less good than one where free creatures can make real choices, even if some choose badly.
Limitation: This defence explains moral evil (caused by humans) but has difficulty explaining natural evil (earthquakes, disease) which isn't caused by human choice.
Key idea: Suffering serves a purpose: it allows humans to develop morally and spiritually.
A world without challenges, pain, or hardship would be a world where courage, compassion, patience, and forgiveness couldn't exist. We grow morally through facing difficulty. A parent might allow a child to experience disappointment or failure because this helps the child develop resilience and wisdom.
On this view, a perfectly good God might permit suffering not as punishment, but as an essential ingredient in human development.
Limitation: Some suffering seems excessive and pointless—it doesn't clearly contribute to anyone's moral growth (e.g., childhood cancer).
Key idea: We cannot expect to understand God's reasons for permitting evil.
Just as a child might not understand why a parent allows them to experience something painful (like a vaccine or a difficult school), humans—with our limited understanding—cannot expect to comprehend why an infinite God would permit suffering. There might be reasons we simply cannot grasp.
This doesn't mean evil is good or that God doesn't care. It means we should be humble about our ability to judge God's purposes.
Limitation: Critics argue this response is too convenient—it seems to shut down inquiry by saying "we just can't understand it."
Which response is strongest? Philosophers disagree. The free will defence is popular because it makes logical sense, but critics point out it doesn't explain natural evil. The soul-making defence explains why suffering might be necessary, but seems to struggle with extreme or pointless suffering. The skeptical theist response is intellectually honest about human limitations, but some say it avoids the problem rather than solving it.
Below are some statements people make about evil and God's nature. Sort each statement into the correct category based on whether it identifies a problem with the logical argument, offers a response to the problem, or is an unresolved tension.
You've now learned three major philosophical responses to the problem of evil: the free will defence, the soul-making defence, and skeptical theism. In this section, you'll assess which response you find most convincing.
Write a short response (200–300 words) addressing one of these prompts:
Structure: State your position clearly in the first sentence. Support it with 2–3 reasons, each explained with examples or evidence. Acknowledge a counter-argument or limitation. Conclude by restating your main point.
Philosophical thinking: Don't just say "I believe this." Explain why logically. Reference specific defences or problems you've learned about.
Use these questions to check your learning. Try to answer without looking back at the lesson.