Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Research Vol. 52 (2018) 23– 31

ArticleThe Problem of Evil

Naoki ARAKI*(Received Oct. 31, 2017)

Abstract
The Problem of Evil has been discussed as one of the major problems in monotheism. “Why does
Almighty God allow evil to exist?” Various solutions to this problem have been proposed, including theFree Will Defence. But none of them is convincing. The Problem of Evil has an assumption, which isthat God exists. One of the proofs of God’s existence is René Descartes’s Ontological Argument. But
none of them is persuasive. Every logic has its own assumption, which needs to be verified. So thisprocess of verification continues ad infinitum as an infinite regress. The Problem of Evil is not a problem but a pseudo-problem. So the Problem of Evil should be discussed as a matter of faith not a matterof logic.
Key Words: evil, the Free Will Defence, proof of God’s existence, the Ontological Argument, assumption, infinite regress

Introduction

exist?” Crusoe answers Friday’s question:

In Robinson Crusoe (1719) by Daniel Defoe,
Crusoe tells Friday that God is omnipotent and thatthe Devil is God’s enemy. Then, Friday says:[…] I said, God will at last punish him [the Devil]
severely; he is reserv’d for the Judgment, and is to be castinto the Bottomless-Pit, to dwell with ever-lasting Fire.

Well, says Friday, but you say, God is so strong,This did not satisfie Friday, but he returns upon me,

so great, is he not much strong, much might as therepeating my Words, Reserve, at last, me no under-

Devil? Yes, yes, says I, Friday, God is stronger than thestand; but, Why not kill the Devil now, not kill great ago?

Devil, God is above the Devil, and therefore we pray

You may as well ask me, said I, Why God does not kill

to God to tread him down under our Feet, and enable

you and I, when we do wicked Things here that offend

us to resist his Temptations and quench his fiery

him? We are preserv’d to repent and be pardon’d: He

Darts. But, says he again, if God much strong, much

[Friday] muses a while at this; well, well, says he,might as the Devil, why God no kill the Devil, so makemighty affectionately, that well; so you, I, Devil, all(Defoe 1981: 218)

wicked, all preserve, repent, God pardon all [including

him no more do wicked?

the Devil].

(Defoe 1981: 218-219)

Here, Friday’s question is, what we call, “The
Problem of Evil,” which has been discussed for a long

Crusoe explains to Friday that even if we aretime. This is paraphrased: “Why does God let the Evilwicked, God preserves us and gives us a chance to* Department of Information Systems and Management, Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology,
Hiroshima 731-5193, Japan. E-mail: araki@cc.it-hiroshima.ac.jp
─ 23 ─Naoki ARAKI

repent and pardons us. Friday accepts Crusoe’s expla-Free Will Defence:nation, which means that we, including the Devil, arepreserved and given a chance to repent and pardoned

By far the most important attempt at a solution to

by God. But are we convinced by Crusoe’s explana-

the Problem of Evil is the Free Will Defence. This istion?

the claim that God has given human beings free will:
the ability to choose for ourselves what to do. If we did

1. The Problem of Evilnot have free will we would be like robots, or autom-

We experience so much evil in our lives. Evil canata, with no choices of our own. Those who accept the

be classified into two: one is called moral evil, theFree Will Defence argue that it is a necessary conse-

other natural evil:

quence of having free will that we should have thepossibility of doing evil; otherwise it would not genu-

There is evil in the world: this cannot seriously be

inely be free will. They tell us that a world in which

denied. Think only of the Holocaust, of Pol Pot’s mas-human beings have free will which sometimes leads tosacres in Cambodia, or of the widespread practice ofevil is preferable to one in which human action is pre-torture. These are all examples of moral evil or cru-

determined, one in which we would be like robots,

elty: human beings inflicting suffering on other humanprogrammed only to perform good actions. Indeed, if

beings, for whatever reason. Cruelty is also often

we were pre-programmed in this way, we could notinflicted upon animals. There is also a different kind ofeven call our actions morally good since moral good-

evil, known as natural or metaphysical evil: earth-ness depends on having a choice about what we do.
(Warburton 1999: 24-25)

quakes, disease, and famine are examples of this sortof evil.

(Warburton 1999: 22)
But there is a criticism of the Free Will Defence:

If so much evil exists in this world, why does God
allow it to keep on existing? If God is omnipotent, He

A major criticism of the Free Will Defence is thatshould be able to eliminate evil from this world. Thisit can at best only justify the existence of moral evil,is the Problem of Evil:evil brought about directly by human beings. There isno conceivable connection between having free will

In view of the existence of so much evil, how cananyone seriously believe in the existence of an all-goodand the existence of such natural evil as earthquakes,
disease, volcanic eruptions and so on, […](Warburton 1999: 26)

God? An all-knowing God would know that evil exists;
an all-powerful God would be able to prevent it occurring; and an all-good God would not want it to exist.

In response to this criticism, there is an explana-

But evil continues to occur. This is the Problem of Evil:tion of natural evil, which says the regularity in thethe problem of explaining how the alleged attributes oflaws of nature has a benefit rather than disasters it

God can be compatible with this undeniable fact ofbrings about:evil. This is the most serious challenge to belief in the
Theists’ God. The Problem of Evil has led many people

Without regularity in nature our world would beto reject belief in God altogether, or at least to revise

mere chaos, and we would have no way of predicting

their opinion about God’s supposed benevolence,

the results of any of our actions. […] Lack of regularity

omnipotence, or omniscience.

in other aspects of the world might make life itself(Warburton 1999: 22-23)

impossible. Science, as well as everyday life, relies
upon there being a great deal of regularity in nature,similar causes tending to produce similar effects.

Then, how has the Problem of Evil been solved?

It is sometimes argued that because this regular-

2. Solution to the Problem of Evil

ity is usually beneficial to us, natural evil is justified

As a solution to the Problem of Evil, we have thesince it is just an unfortunate side-effect of the laws of─ 24 ─

The Problem of Evil

nature continuing to operate in a regular way. The

tions?

overall beneficial effects of this regularity are supDualistic religions espouse the existence of two

posed to outweigh the detrimental ones.
(Warburton 1999: 27)

opposing powers: good and evil. […] dualism believes
that evil is an independent power, neither created by

However, this argument is also open to a criti-

the good God, nor subordinate to it. Dualism explainsthat the entire universe is a battleground between

cism:these two forces, and that everything that happens in[…], it [this argument] does not explain why an

the world is part of the struggle.

(Harari 2011: 245)

omnipotent God couldn’t have created laws of nature
Moreover, Harari says that the Problem of Evilwhich would never actually lead to any natural evil.
(Warburton 1999: 27)

has been explained in terms of “human free will.” In
any case, Harari concludes that we have had “a hard

Moreover, there is another criticism of the Free

time dealing with the Problem of Evil.” But dualistic
religions can easily solve the problem:

Will Defence:
If God is omnipotent, then presumably it is within

For dualists, it’s easy to explain evil. Bad things

his or her powers to have created a world in whichhappen even to good people because the world is notthere was both free will and yet no evil. In fact such agoverned single-handedly by a good God. There is an

world is not particularly difficult to imagine. Although

independent evil power loose in the world. The evil

having free will always give us the possibility of per-power does bad things.

(Harari 2011: 246)

forming evil, there is no reason why this should ever
become an actuality. It is logically possible that every-

However, dualistic religions cannot explain “theone could have had free will but decided always to

Problem of Order,” even though they can solve “theshun the evil course of behaviour.

Problem of Evil”:(Warburton 1999: 26)
But if Good and Evil battle for control of the
If God is omnipotent, He can create a world inworld, who enforces the laws governing this cosmic

which free will and no evil coexist. As we have seen,

war? Two rival states can fight one another because

the Free Will Defence could not solve the Problem ofboth obey the same laws of physics. A missile launched

Evil. There have been other solutions to this problem

from Pakistan can hit targets in India because gravity

but any of them could not solve it, either. Could weworks the same way in both countries. When Good

human beings not find any possible way to explain

and Evil fight, what common laws do they obey, and

why God allows evil to exist?

who decreed these laws?

(Harari 2011: 246)

Yuval Noah Harari deals with the Problem of Evil
Then, Harari proposes a surprising solution tofrom a different perspective. According to Harari, dual-

this dilemma:

istic religion ‘is a very attractive world view’:
Dualism [Dualistic religion] is a very attractive

So, monotheism [for example, Judaism, Christian-world view because it has a short and simple answer

ity, and Islam] explains order, but is mystified by evil.

to the famous Problem of Evil, one of the fundamental

Dualism [Dualistic religion] explains evil, but is puz-concerns of human thought. ‘Why is there evil in thezled by order. There is one logical way of solving theworld? Why is there suffering? Why do bad things

riddle: to argue that there is a single omnipotent God

happen to good people?’

who created the entire universe—and He’s evil. But(Harari 2011: 245)

nobody in history has had the stomach for such aThen, what is the dualistic religion Harari men-belief.

─ 25 ─

(Harari 2011: 246)

Naoki ARAKIWe have a similar idea to Harari’s. Colin McGinnsays that God and the Devil are one and the same:

According to the Ontological Argument, God isdefined as the most perfect being imaginable; or, inthe most famous formulation of the argument, given

So we might reasonably consider the hypothesisby St Anselm (1033-1109), as ‘that being than whichthat God is identical to the Devil: that would explain

nothing greater can be conceived’. One of the aspects

the fact that their apparent rivalry never turns intoof this perfection or greatness is supposed to be exis-

actual elimination, or at least confinement.

tence. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not(McGinn 2017: 302)

exist. Consequently, from the definition of God it is
supposed to follow that he or she necessarily exists
just as it follows from the definition of a triangle that

Furthermore, McGinn says:

the sum of its interior angles will be 180 degrees.
(Warburton 1999: 19)

We do know that God must be capable of evil,
because of his omnipotence; so he must have his

Karen Armstrong explains Anselm’s proof of

inscrutable reasons for exercising that capacity in theguise of the Devil. This makes more sense than sup-God’s existence as follows:

posing that he allows the Devil to exist and ply his
He [Anselm] defined God as “that thing thantrade when he could so easily improve things by putting him out of business.

(McGinn 2017: 302)

which nothing more perfect can be thought [aliquid
quo nihil maius cogitari possit].” […] As a Platonist, it

After all, Harari cannot propose a convincing solu-

was natural for Anselm to think that the very naturetion to the Problem of Evil. It may be profoundly arro-(ontos) of God contains within it the necessity forgant of human beings to think that they can solve theGod’s existence. “Lord my God,” he [Anselm] prays,

Problem of Evil.

“you so truly are, that it is not possible to think of you

If we change the point of view, we discover thatas not existing.” […] Anselm believed that the idea of

there is an assumption about the Problem of Evil.

God was innate: even this atheist had an idea of God

Nobody cannot deny that this problem starts from thein his mind or he would not have been able to deny it.

assumption that God exists. But is it verified? If it isEven though we live in such an imperfect world, we

not, the problem will collapse. So we need to confirm

have a notion of absolute perfection and completeness.

whether God exists or not before we solve the Prob-

But a perfect thing that existed only in the mind would

lem of Evil. So next, we shall examine the proof ofbe a contradiction in terms, since to exist in reality (inGod’s existence.

re) is both greater and more complete than to exist
merely as a mental concept:

3. Proof of Gody’s Existence
We have the Ontological Argument as one of the

If that than which nothing greater [maius] can be

proofs of God’s existence. What is the Ontologicalthought exists in the understanding alone, then thisArgument?

thing than which nothing greater can be thought issomething than which a greater can be thought. And

The Ontological Argument, however, is an attempt

this is clearly impossible.

to show that the existence of God necessarily follows
from the definition of God as the supreme being.

Therefore, Anselm concluded, “there can be no

Because this conclusion can be drawn prior to experi-

doubt at all” that this “something greater” exists “bothence, it is known as an a priori argument.

in the understanding and in reality.” […] Anselm was(Warburton 1999: 19)

not attempting a scientific or logical “proof”; rather, he
was using his reasoning powers to stir up his sluggish

Then, how does the Ontological Argument provethat God exists?

mind so that it could “involve” itself with the immanent
divine reality. And built into this “proof” was the apo-─ 26 ─

The Problem of Evilphatic conviction that any idea that human beings

derive an argument to demonstrate God’s existence?

could conceive of God would inevitably fall short of the

Certainly I find in myself an idea of God—that is, of areality.

supremely perfect being—just as much as I find an(Armstrong 2009: 132-133)

idea of any shape or number. I understand that it
According to Anselm, the idea of God is innate.

belongs to God’s nature that he always exists that, as

Armstrong thinks that Anselm was not attempting aclearly and distinctly as I understand that whatever I

scientific or logical proof of God’s existence. Also,

demonstrate about any shape or number belongs to

Armstrong claims that Anselm’s proof of God’s exis-

the nature of that shape or number. Therefore, even if

tence could be accepted in a world dominated by Pla-

everything on which I meditated in recent days weretonic thought:

not true, I should attribute to God’s existence at least
the same degree of certainty that I have attributed to

Nevertheless, like the Muslim and Jewish

mathematical truths until now.

(Descartes 1998: 53)

Faylasufs, Anselm believed that the existence of God
could be argued rationally, and he devised his own

Here, Descartes contrasts the idea of God with

proof, which is usually called the “ontological” argu-

that of shape or number and insists that since shape or

ment. Anselm defined God as “something than which

number clearly and distinctly exits, so does God. We

nothing greater can be thought” (aliquid quo nihil

have one more proof of God’s existence by Descartes

maius cogitari possit). Since this implied that God

in the third of his Meditations:

could be an object of thought, the implication was thathe could be conceived and comprehended by theThus the idea of God is the only one left abouthuman mind. Anselm argued that this Something mustwhich to ask the question: does it contain something

exist. Since existence is more “perfect” or completethat could not have originated from me? By the word

than nonexistence, the perfect being that we imagine‘God’ I understand some infinite substance, which ismust have existence or it would be imperfect. Anselm’s

independent, supremely intelligent and supremely

proof was ingenious and effective in a world domi-

powerful, and by which both I, and everything else

nated by Platonic thought, where ideas were believedthat exists (if anything else exists), was created. All

to point to eternal archetypes. (Armstrong 1993: 202)

these ideas are surely such that, the more carefully I
examine them, the less likely it seems that they could

René Descartes also uses the Ontological Argu-

have originated from myself alone. Therefore one
should draw the conclusion from what has been said

ment to prove that God exists:that God necessarily exists. And even though I have anThis argument [the Ontological Argument],

idea of a substance from the very fact that I am a sub-which has been used by several philosophers, includ-stance myself, it would not, however, be an idea of aning René Descartes (1596-1650) in the fifth of his

infinite substance because I am finite, unless it origi-

Meditations, has convinced very few people of God’s

nated from some substance that is genuinely infinite.

existence, but it is not easy to see precisely what is(Descartes 1998: 38)

wrong with it.

(Warburton 1999: 19)
According to Descartes, the idea of God, some

Then, what is Descartes’s proof of God’s exis-

infinite substance, could not have originated from him-tence like? Next we shall examine it in the fifth of his

self, who is a finite substance. So God necessarily

Meditations:exists. Moreover Descartes goes on to say:Now if it follows, from the fact alone that I can

As I have already said, it is clear that there must

produce an idea of something from my thought, thatbe at least as much reality in a cause as in its effect.

everything that I perceive clearly and distinctly as

Therefore, since I am a thinking thing and I have somebelonging to it does really belong to it, could I not alsoidea of God, whatever cause is eventually assigned to─ 27 ─Naoki ARAKIme, it must be agreed that it is a thinking thing andour self is just an illusion and does not exist at all.

that it includes an idea of all the perfections that I

Harari says the same thing as this:

attribute to God. One can ask about that cause in turn:
does it derive its existence from itself or from some-

Doubts about the existence of free will and indi-thing else? If it derives its existence from itself, it isviduals are nothing new, of course. Thinkers in India,

obvious from what has already been said that it is itself

China and Greece argued that ‘the individual self is an

God because, since it derives the power to exist fromillusion’ more than 2,000 years ago. (Harari 2015: 305)

itself, it undoubtedly also has the power of possessing
actually the perfections of which it has an idea, that is,

As we have seen, Descartes proves the existence

all the perfections that I conceive of in God. If, how-of God. But why has this argument of Descartes’s

ever, it derives its existence from something else, thenconvinced very few people of God’s existence?

the question arises again in the same way about that,whether it derives its existence from itself or fromOne common criticism of the Ontological Argu-

something else, until finally one arrives at the ultimate

ment is that it would seem to allow us to define allcause, which is God. It is clear enough that there can-kinds of things into existence. For instance, we can

not be an infinite regress here, especially since I amquite easily imagine a perfect island, with a perfect

not concerned at this stage with the cause that pro-beach, perfect wildlife, and so on, but it obviously does

duced me in the past but much more with the cause

not follow from this that this perfect island actuallythat maintains me in existence at present.

exists somewhere. So, because the Ontological Argu-(Descartes 1998: 41-42)

ment seems to justify such a ridiculous conclusion, it
can easily be seen to be a bad argument. Either the

Descartes’s line of reasoning is as follows: there

argument’s structure must be unsound, or else at leastis a reality of cause as in its effect. So Descartes’s idea

one of its initial assumptions must be false; otherwiseof God must have its cause outside himself, that is,

it could not possibly give rise to such obviously absurd

from the ultimate cause, which is God. Therefore, God

consequences.

(Warburton 1999: 19-20)

exists. But if effects have causes, then God (as aneffect) has a cause. Then, God’s cause (as an effect)

This is a theologian, Gaunilo’s criticism although

has a cause. This process continues ad infinitum. Is

Warburton does not mention him. This passage

this not an infinite regress? Finally Descartes asks

reminds us of Plato’s theory of form. According to

how he, who is finite, has gained the idea of God, whohim, “this perfect island” exists in the realm of form.

is infinite:

Even if the Ontological Argument is accepted, we
have a criticism of this argument:

It only remains for me to examine how I received
this idea from God. I did not derive it from the senses,

A bachelor can be defined as an unmarried man.

nor did it ever arrive unexpectedly as the ideas ofBeing unmarried is the essential defining property of asensible things usually do when external objects

bachelor. Now, if I were to say ‘bachelors exist’, I

impinge, or seem to impinge, on the sense organs. Nor

would not be giving a further property of bachelors.

was it fabricated by me, for it is clear that I can neither

Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property

add to it nor subtract anything from it. Thus it follows

of being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried theythat it is innate in me, just as the idea of myself ismust first exist, though the concept of a bachelor

innate in me.

remains the same whether or not any bachelors do(Descartes 1998: 42-43)

happen to exist.
Here, Descartes, like St Anselm, says that theIf we apply the same thinking to the Ontologicalidea of God is innate in himself. Although Descartes

Argument, we see that the mistake it makes is to treat

insists that not only the idea of God but also that of

the existence of God as if it were simply another prop-

himself is innate in himself, Buddhism teaches us that

erty, like omniscience, or omnipotence. But God could─ 28 ─

The Problem of Evilnot be omniscient or omnipotent without existing, so

into existence by chance. Design is the only alterna-by giving a definition of God at all we are alreadytive to chance that the authors [of a creationist book,assuming that he or she exists. Listing existence as a

Life—How Did It Get Here?] can imagine. Therefore afurther essential property of a perfect being is making

designer [God] must have done it. And science’s

the mistake of treating existence as a property rather

answer to this faulty logic is also always the same.

than as the precondition of anything having any prop-

Design is not the only alternative to chance. Naturalerties at all.

selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not

But what about fictional beings, such as unicorns?

a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger

Surely we can talk about the properties of a unicorn,

problem than it solves: who designed the designer?

such as having one horn and four legs, without uni-

Chance and design both fail as solutions to the prob-

corns actually having to exist. The answer is that what

lem of statistical improbability, because one [chance]a sentence like ‘Unicorns have one horn’ really meansof them is the problem, and the other one [design]is ‘If unicorns were to exist, they would have one

regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is

horn’. In other words, ‘Unicorns have one horn’ isthe only workable solution that has ever been sug-

really a hypothetical statement. So the non-existence

gested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is aof unicorns is not a problem for the view that existence

solution of stunning elegance and power.

(Warburton 1999: 20-21)(Dawkins 2008: 146-147)

If we rewrite a part of Warburton’s passage above,

Here, Dawkins criticizes the creationists andis not a property.

insists that even if God does not exist, we can explain

it will be:

the complex and improbable structures of all the living
What a sentence like ‘God is perfect’ really meansis ‘If God were to exist, He would be perfect.’ In othercreatures using natural selection. The same logic as
this is seen in Nāgārjuna’s writings:

words, ‘God is perfect’ is really a hypothetical stateAn infinite regress shows that if we accept ament.

claim, we can apply it ad infinitum. For example, supIf Warburton is right, then the non-existence ofpose that existence is produced by something.

God is not a problem for the view that God is perfect[Nā gā rjuna says,] “If something is produced by some-(existence is not a property). So it is surprising thatthing else, this ‘something else’ will be produced by

Descartes was satisfied with his own proof of God’sanother ‘something else.’ This process continues adexistence. If we can say that God exists because He is

infinitum (anavasthā ). So, if something [God], which

perfect, then we can also say that God allows evil toexist because He is perfect and never makes mistakes

is not produced by something else, exists, all the otherthings will exist likewise.” (Mā dhyamaka-śā stra, 7-19)

but we human beings are not perfect enough to under-[…] He [Hakuseki Arai] writes in his Record of Things

stand His intentions, that is, why He allows evil to

Heard from the West:

exist.
As we have seen, the Ontological Argument could

There is a doctrine that everything on the earth

not prove that God exists. Could we not verify that God

did not come into being by itself but someone [God]exists?

must have created it. If this is true, God also must

There is another story about God’s existence.

have been created by someone else before everything

Richard Dawkins mentions the idea that God createdcame into being. So, if God has existed by Himself

the universe, which is one proof that God exists:from the outset, then everything also must have comeinto being by itself. (My translation)

Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natu-(Sadakata 1990: 130-132)

ral phenomenon is too statistically improbable, toocomplex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come─ 29 ─

After all, it may be also profoundly arrogant of

Naoki ARAKI

human beings to think that they can prove God’s exis-

beings, but not to natural evil caused by earthquakes

tence as in the case of the Problem of Evil.

or any other natural disasters. But we need regularityof nature which brings about natural evil even though

4. Infinite Regress

it leads to natural evil such as earthquakes and volca-

As we have seen, the proof of God’s existence is

nic eruptions in order to maintain order of the world.

open to a lot of criticisms. Why is that? We can treat

Even so, God should have been able to create regular-

this matter from a quite different point of view. The

ity of nature, which does not lead to natural evil. More-conclusion is that every theory or logic is based on an

over, from the outset God should have been able toimplicit assumption, which cannot be verified or

create a world, in which free will and no evil coexisted.

proved as correct in its theory or logic.

What is behind the Problem of Evil? It is an

For example, a numerical expression 1 + 1 = 2 isassumption that God exists. The Problem of Evil willbased on an implicit assumption that the calculation iscollapse unless we can prove an assumption that God

performed using a system of counting other than theexists. In other words, the Problem of Evil is based on

binary system. If we calculate this numerical expres-an assumption that God exists. So the Problem of Evilsion using the binary system, then we have 1 + 1 = 10

will emerge after we can prove or verify an assumption

instead of 1 + 1 = 2. In this case, the binary system orthat God exists. So, if God does not exist, the Problem

any other systems of counting cannot be correct orof Evil (why God allows evil to exist) will disappear.

wrong. It is an assumption, from which a theory or

The problem would not be a problem but a pseudo-

logic starts.

problem like a castle in the air.

Let’s take another example. Euclidean geometry

So, next, let’s consider an assumption that God

starts from an assumption that parallel lines do notexists. The Ontological Argument says that God exists

intersect. From this assumption, for example, we canbecause God has a property of perfection, including

deduce a formula that the sum of the interior angles ofexistence, by the definition of God. In other words,a triangle is 180 degrees. This assumption is called an

God, a perfect being would not be perfect if He did notaxiom. As is well known, the axiom cannot be proved

exist. Descartes says almost the same thing as this inor verified as correct in Euclidean geometry because

the fifth of his Meditations. His proof of God’s exis-

it is an assumption but not what is proved or verified

tence is one example of the Ontological Argument. But

as correct. So Euclidean geometry is based on anvery few people are convinced by the Ontologicalaxiom or an assumption, which cannot be proved or

Argument explained above. If the Ontological Argu-

verified as correct. But once the axiom or the assump-ment is right, then we can make a lot of things exist

tion is supposed to be accepted, then a lot of formulaeusing only the definition of them. For example, we cancan be deduced from it along the correct line of logic.

insist that an ideal dog exists somewhere because we“The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180

can define a dog like that. This is what Plato thought

degrees” is one example of those formulae.

about as the theory of form. According to Plato, every-

If we apply this thinking to the proof of God’s

thing we experience is a copy of an ideal thing, which

existence, what will happen? Let’s take the Problem ofis called form by Plato. Form is thought to exist some-

Evil first. The problem is why God, who is omnipotent,

where in the realm of form but not in this real world.

allows evil to exist. To solve this problem, a lot of dis-In the Middle Ages, Plato’s form is interpreted as

cussions have been developed, including the Free Will

Christian God. In this respect, Plato’s theory of form

Defence. The Free Will Defence says that God has

and the Ontological Argument might have something

given human beings free will to decide what to do in a

in common. In any case, the Ontological Argument iscertain situation. As a result, in some cases, free will

open to criticisms.

may lead human beings to do evil. If we do not have

In short, God could not be omnipotent without

free will, our behaviour is predetermined and we will

existing. So by giving the definition of God, we are

be like robots or automata. This explanation may bealready assuming that He first exists.

applicable to moral evil brought about by human─ 30 ─As I said before, every theory or logic has an

The Problem of Evil

implicit assumption. In the case of the Problem of Evil,

proof of God’s existence so far. Every logic or theory

it has an assumption that God exists. Also, the proof ofstarts from a premise, which is not proved as correct

God’s existence has an assumption. In the Ontologicalbecause we need another premise again in order toArgument, it is that God is omnipotent. So, next weprove the first premise. So this cycle of proof contin-

need to prove that God is omnipotent. Like this, toues ad infinitum. This is an infinite regress. So God’s

prove one thing, we need to prove another thing. To

existence cannot be proved as a matter of logic. That

prove another thing, we need to prove still anotheris a matter of faith. So, if God’s existence is not proved,thing. This process goes on ad infinitum. This is called

the Problem of Evil cannot be solved, either. In otheran infinite regress. An infinite regress continues with-words, the Problem of Evil is not a problem but aout limit. So a theory or logic is never finished. In

pseudo-problem.

other words, every theory or logic is based on an

References

assumption, which cannot be logically proved or verified as correct. In the case of the Problem of Evil, it isArmstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000-Yearbased on an assumption that God exists. Also, in the

Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ballan-case of proof of God’s existence by the Ontologicaltine Books. 1993.

Argument, it is based on an assumption that God is

Armstrong, Karen. The Case for God. Anchor Books.
2009.

omnipotent. But in both cases, the two assumptions
that God exists and that God is omnipotent cannot be

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Mariner Books.
2008.

proved or verified as correct. So the Problem of Eviland Proof of God’s Existence by the Ontological Argu-

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe, edited with an intro-

ment are both pseudo-problems. This means that bothduction by J. Donald Crowley. Oxford Universityof them are not problems to be solved. From the out-

Press. 1981.

set, both of them do not exist as problems. They are

Descartes, René. Meditations and other Metaphysicalillusions just like a castle in the air. So nobody can

Writings, translated with an introduction by Desmond M. Clarke. Penguin Books. 1998.

solve the Problem of Evil and prove the God’s existence at all, however hard he or she may try to. So any

Harari, Yubal Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Vintage Books. 2011.

attempt, which has been made so far, is a waste of time

Harari, Yubal Noah. Homo Deus: A Brief History ofafter all.

Tomorrow. Harvill Secker. 2015.

Conclusion

McGinn, Colin. Philosophical Provocations. The MIT
Press. 2017.

The Problem of Evil is based on an assumptionthat God really exists. Then, has the existence of God

Sadakata, Akira. Emptiness and Selflessness: Buddism’s

been proved? If God exists because of His perfection,

View of Language. Koudansya. 1990. (in Japanese)then God may allow evil to exist due to His perfect

Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics. 3rd edition.

intentions human beings cannot understand forever. In
any case, unfortunately there has been no convincing

─ 31 ─

Routledge. 1999.