The Problem of Evil

IntroductionThe starting point or common ground of this debate is the definition of the Judeo-Christian God. Among other things, The Judeo-Christian God is defined as morally perfect being, omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of all things. A morally perfect being, by definition, cannot be evil. If evil exists, it does not logically follow that the Judeo-Christian God is evil.If evil exists, there are other conclusions that are more logically consistent and coherent with the definition of God. For example, we could conclude with logical consistency that God does not exist. Or, we could conclude with equal logical consistency that God allows evil to exist because it serves a greater purpose. The first conclusion is generally accepted by atheists, the second by theists. Because there are explanations for the existence of evil that are more logical and thus proabable than concluding God is evil, it is not reasonable to believe the existence of evil suggests God is evil.Re: Pro's casePro's argument can be summed up as follows: 1. Evil exists2. God created evil.3. Creation is a form of expression.4. Evil is thus an expression of God.5. Expressions are "merely contingent representations of an underlying nature or principle."6. Therefore, God is evil.Every single premise and conclusion in Pro's argument is questionable. Pro provides no evidence evil exists. If the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is more logically consistent to conclude that evil does not exist.(2) is dubious at best. Even if God created all things and evil exists, it does not follow that God created evil. It is more logical to conclude that evil is the lack of good. The Augustinian and Thomistic view of evil holds that evil is the privation of good. Hence, when there is an absence of good, evil exists. God created good. Evil is simply its absence, which is thus not created by God. (3) and (4) lead Pro into a double bind. If (3) is false, then so is the conclusion of Pro's argument. There is good reason to believe (3) is false. Expression implies intention. As illustration of this point, consider the word "help" etched into a wall. At first, it may be interpreted as a call for assistance or as the sign of a Beatles song. But suppose you were given irrefutable proof that this was the result of a leaking pipe on the ceiling. It would no longer carry any meaning. Without an intention behind or above it, the word "help" is completely meaningless. The point being, things are often created without any intention. Hence, creation is not by necessity a form of expression. Hypothetically, suppose (3) is true. Pro's argument must nonetheless fail. Why? Because expression implies intention. Hence, coupled with (4), Pro admits that "evil" has a clear intent and purpose. Because God is morally perfect, if God created evil, it must have been with a moral intention. Logic, and logic alone, tells us that God's purpose behind creating evil must coincide, by God's definition, with God's moral perfection. Hence, the intention and purpose of evil is good. God's expression itself, which is defined through intentionality, must be good. Therefore, God is good, not evil.(5) puts Pro in yet another double bind. If it is true, Pro admits the same conclusion as (3) and (4). (5) acknowledges an "underlying nature or principle" behind the creation of evil, and this principle is God. God is morally perfect. Therefore, Pro has concluded that what we think is evil is actually good. God, by definition, cannot be evil. The logical conclusion of Pro's argument is that "evil" has a "good" intention or "underlying nature," not that God is evil.That said, there is good reason to believe (5) is false, in which case Pro's argument is moot anyway. According to the existentialist philosopher Sartre, existence precedes essence. Applying that truth here, expression precedes its underlying nature. Expression is existence, essence is its nature or principle. Heidegger's fundamental ontology in Being and Time would support this argument. Meaning, Heidegger argues, is produced temporally, which is to say, it is always projecting towards the future. This means that the meaning of any "expression" does not lie in an "underlying nature," but rather, lies in the future projection of that expression. In the case of evil, we would say that its creator, God, is not evil, but rather, its future possibility is.Every premise and conclusion in Pro's argument is dubious. But what is worse, Pro's argument is self-refuting. If we accept either (3), (4), or (5) as true, Pro's conclusion cannot be true. So whether Pro's premises are true or not, Pro's conclusion that God is evil is false in every case.ConclusionI have completely refuted Pro's argument. Expression implies intentionality. For that reason alone, Pro's premises actually work against Pro's end.So what is the proper conclusion if evil exists? There are three possibilities that can be defended logically: 1) the Judeo-Christian God does not exist; or 2) there is a greater moral purpose behind the creation of evil; or 3) evil is the absence of good. The argument for (1) is quite clear. (2) is defended through various means. For example, by arguing that God could not eliminate evil without eliminating the greater good of free will, or by arguing that God provides humans with ethical choices because we need to see evil to understand what is good. I think both of these arguments work logically. As for (3), it is the classic Augustinian and Thomistic view of evil. It is just as valid and logical a conclusion as any. Because there are better explanations for the existence of evil than concluding that God is evil, the resolution is negated.