But even if we accept this, analogies allow us to conclude only so much goodness and intelligence as are evident in the things we experience. Certainly, using the analogy and beginning with experience, one cannot conclude that the creator of the universe is all-perfect, because the universe itself is not. And if nothing is allowed as evidence of the world's imperfection, then it seems that the conclusion about God being its creator is merely being assumed rather than proved. According to the argument, if God were able or were willing to do away with evil, he would do so. No one really believes that evil is not real.
Evil is necessary to highlight and balance the good.
Without evil, we would not know what the good is and would not appreciate it. Any suffering in this life will be more than compensated by the eternal rewards of the next life. Hume raises another objection to this defense of God by pointing out that it requires that we already believe in an afterlife simply to balance the perceived evil in the world. But the existence of evil is precisely the reason not to believe in God or an afterlife. It seems that through creation God knowingly introduces evil into the world, and is thus ultimately responsible for it.