The problem of evil in this world

There are many reasons why people turn away from believing in God. One reason that stands out is "the problem of evil" - which theologian Peter Kreeft calls "the greatest test of faith, the greatest temptation to unbelief". Agnostics and atheists often use the problem of evil as their argument to sow doubt or deny the existence of God. They claim that the coexistence of evil and God is unlikely (according to the agnostics) or impossible (according to the atheists). The chain of arguments of the following statement comes from the time of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (about 300 BC). It was taken up and popularized by the Scottish philosopher David Hume at the end of the 18th century.

Here is the statement:
“If it is God's will to prevent evil, but he cannot, then He is not omnipotent. Or he can, but it is not his will: then God is jealous. If both are true, he can and wants to prevent them: where does evil come from? And if neither will nor ability, why should we call him God?”

Epicurus, and later Hume, drew a picture of God that was in no way his. I don't have space here for a full reply (theologians call it a theodicy). But I would like to emphasize that this chain of arguments cannot even come close to being a knockout argument against the existence of God. As pointed out by many Christian apologists (apologists are theologians engaged in their scientific "justification" and defense of tenets of faith), the existence of evil in the world is evidence for, rather than against, the existence of God. I would now like to go into more detail on this.

Evil causes the good

The statement that evil is present as an objective feature in our world proves to be a double-edged sword that splits the agnostics and atheists much more deeply than the theists. In order to argue that the presence of evil refutes the existence of God, it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of evil. It follows that there must be an absolute moral law that defines evil as evil. One can not develop a logical concept of evil without presupposing the highest moral law. This puts us in a big dilemma as it raises the question of the origin of this law. In other words, if evil is the opposite of good, how do we determine what is good? And where does the understanding of this consideration come from?

The 1. The book of Moses teaches us that the creation of the world was good and not evil. However, it also tells of the fall of mankind, which was caused by evil and brought about evil. Because of evil, this world is not the best of all possible worlds. Consequently, the problem of evil reveals the deviation from "how it should be". However, if things are not as they should be, then there must be a If there is that path, then there must be a transcendental design, plan, and purpose to attain that desired state. This in turn presupposes a transcendental being (God) who is the originator of this plan. If there is no God, then there is no way things should be, and consequently there would be no evil. This may all sound a bit confusing, but it isn't. It is a carefully crafted logical conclusion.

Right and wrong are opposite each other

CS Lewis took this logic to the extreme. In his book Pardon, I Am Christian, he lets us know that he was an atheist, mainly because of the presence of evil, cruelty and injustice in the world. But the more he thought about his atheism, the more he realized clearly that a definition of injustice exists only in relation to an absolute legal conception. The law presupposes a righteous person who stands above humanity and who has the authority to shape created reality and establish rules of law in it.

Moreover, he realized that the origin of evil is not due to God the Creator, but to the creatures who gave in to the temptation to distrust God and chose to sin. Lewis also realized that when people were the source of good and evil, humans cannot be objective because they are subject to change. He also concluded that one group of people can make judgments about others as to whether they did good or bad, but then the other group can counter it with their version of good and bad. The question, then, is what is the authority behind these competing versions of good and bad? Where is the objective norm when something is considered unacceptable in one culture but is considered permissible in the other? We see this dilemma at work all over the world, often (unfortunately) in the name of religion or other ideologies.

What remains is this: If there is no supreme creator and moral legislator, then there can be no objective norm for good either. If there is no objective standard of goodness, how can one find out if something is good? Lewis illustrated this: “If there were no light in the universe, and therefore no creatures with eyes, then we would never know it was dark. The word dark would have no meaning for us.”

Our personal and good God defeats evil

Only when there is a personal and good God who opposes evil does it make sense to accuse evil or launch a call for action. If there were no such God, one could not turn to him. There would be no basis for a view beyond what we call good and bad. There would be nothing left but to put the “good” sticker on what we have a penchant for; however, if it conflicted with someone else's preference, we would label it bad or evil. In such a case there would be nothing objectively evil; nothing to really complain about and nobody to complain to either. Things would just be as they are; you can call them whatever you like.

Only by believing in a personal and good God do we really have a basis for condemning evil and can turn to “someone” to have it destroyed. The belief that there is a real problem of evil and that one day it will be solved and all things put right provides a good basis of belief that a personal and good God exists.

Although evil persists, God is with us and we have hope

The evil exists - you just have to look at the news. We have all experienced evil and know the destructive effects. But we also know that God does not let us survive in our fallen state. In an earlier article, I pointed out that our fall has not surprised God. He did not have to resort to Plan B because he had already put into effect his plan to overcome evil and this plan is Jesus Christ and reconciliation. In Christ, God has defeated evil through his authentic love; this plan has been ready since the foundation of the world. Jesus' cross and resurrection show us that evil will not have the last word. Because of the work of God in Christ, evil has no future.

Do you long for a God who sees evil, who graciously takes responsibility for it, who is committed to doing something about it, and who ends up making everything right? Then I have good news for you - this is the very God that Jesus Christ revealed. Although we are in "this present wicked world" (Galatians 1,4) live, as Paul wrote, God has neither given us up nor left us without hope. God assures us all that he is with us; he has penetrated into the here and now of our existence and thus gives us the blessing of receiving the "firstfruits" (Romans 8,23) of the “world to come” (Luke 18,30)—a “pledge” (Ephesians 1,13-14) the goodness of God as it will be present under his rule in the fullness of his kingdom.

By the grace of God we now embody the signs of the kingdom of God through our life together in the church. The indwelling Triune God is enabling us now to experience some of the fellowship He has planned for us from the beginning. In fellowship with God and with one another there will be joy—true life that never ends and in which no evil happens. Yes, we all have our struggles on this side of glory, but we are comforted in knowing that God is with us - his love lives in us forever through Christ - through his Word and his Spirit. Scripture states: "Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world" (1. John 4,4).

by Joseph Tkack

The problem of evil in this world