Talk:Problem of evil

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Definition of "evil".[edit]

The article, quite rightly, points out that the "problem of evil" argument depends on which god or gods it is being used against, and defines the god involved as being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

But I'm wondering if, in addition to defining the god, we need to define "evil" as well. While all words have multiple meanings which tend to change with context, the word "evil", for me, really exists in a religious context. As an atheist I see a contrast between "good and bad" rather between "good and evil".

It could be argued that "Everyone knows what evil is" - but the same argument is sometimes proposed about god. Yet we have seen it is necessary to define it very clearly in the article.Hubert (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A good definition of evil in this context is "suffering" imo. Oxyaena Harass 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. That's pretty good. It's a shame it can't be reformulated as a "problem of suffering" really. Because, as an atheist, I believe in neither god (not a typo) nor "evil" (in the religious sense ). The idea that one thing I do not believe exists being disproved by the alleged existence of another thing I do not necessarily believe exists starts to get a little bit hypothetical. — Unsigned, by: Hubert / talk / contribs
There is no direct connection between 'evil' and 'suffering' - you may suffer because your car is not working and you just missed the bus and it is hailing, but there is no evil in the situation.
To what extent is 'evil a state of mind' - doing things which you know to be wrong and which cause harm to others/allowing a situation where others experience suffering to persist and doing nothing about it or even encouraging it? (Simplistic examples but nothing wrong with them for that.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anna Livia I've always interpreted the "evil" in the "Problem of Evil" to mean "suffering" since people typically include cancer in that, even though cancer is naturally occurring and not artificial. I agree that it's good to include a dividing line, but the things you mentioned above are typically called "nuisances" and aren't what come to mind when most people think of "suffering." Oxyaena Harass 22:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
But 'evil' and 'suffering' are two different things - Hitler and 'the other usual suspects' are/were evil. Anna Livia (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Hubert, I agree with @Oxyaena. In the PoE, "evil" means "suffering". Remember, the PoE is a very targetted argument which tries to prove by contradiction that God, as typically envisioned by Christians, does not exist (although, it could be used in an attempt to disprove the existence of any omnipotent, omni-benevolent entity) The argument happens to be popularly known as "The Problem of Evil" but that is just semantics. --Bertrc (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer to the problem of evil[edit]

... is that we are asking the wrong question.

Is it that evil is more a process, activity or state of mind etc than 'an actual thing of itself'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Divine Evil[edit]

I recently came across this section on David Lewis's philosophy of religion, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/david-lewis/#7.4, which I think provides an interesting perspective on the problem of evil. The last paragraph of section 7.4 concerning Lewis's paper "Divine Evil" is particularly interesting: "Lewis suggests that proponents of the problem of evil should not focus on what God fails to prevent, but on what God does." Lewis spotlights how in orthodox Christianity and Islam, God is portrayed as perpetrating great evil against sinners, in the form of extreme punishments in the afterlife. Lewis urges that a God who exacts these punishments would be so evil that we should not only reject Him, but we may regard those who endorse the divine punishments as somewhat culpable of divine evil.

Here is an entity that knowingly allows evil to occur—but no, this isn't enough for him—he also actively carries out infernal punishments, indiscriminately; and all the while, he remains convinced that he isn't a hypocrite—no! I am divine! and you should count yourself lucky that you get to grovel at my feet. Theists are certainly an odd bunch, even by the delusional communities' standards, they simply cannot accept that the nonentity they obsequiously fawn over ... has a heart of obsidian.—LeucippusTalk 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not Muslim, so I do not want to speak for them, but, personally, I do not think you or David Lewis have a completely accurate understanding of Christian teachings. --Bertrc (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
1) First, you should understand the Christian view of what you are referring to as "punishment", aka "damnation". In most Christian denominations, the afterlife "punishment" you refer to is not pitchforks and flames; the ultimate "punishment" is true separation from God. Think back to a time that you felt utterly devastated -- I am talking about weeping, borderline (or actually) slitting-your-wrists wrecked[Note 1] kind of despair -- If you honestly explore why you were/are in such a state, I think you will find that it is because something has either been taken away from you or lost by you; or that something is in danger of being taken away or lost. That "something" is probably something you largely base your identity on; or define your self worth by; or look to for your true sense of joy or security. When a foundation of your life crumbles, your life falls apart. Christians largely believe that even in those times, God is still there supporting you. Since any non-divine foundation will ultimately crumble under the weight we place on it, the ultimate suffering would be to not even have God's support. I would take the pain of ten drawn out kidney stones over that pain of despair. --Bertrc (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2) Second, you should know that, in the Christian belief, separation from God is allowed, rather than inflicted. That is the central point of the Gospel -- Like followers of most religions, Christians do believe that there is a gulf between the natural and the supernatural. Unlike religions, however, Christianity does not believe there is a set of practices and/or actions which can allow us to bridge that gap and thus reach the "salvation" of the supernatural. Instead, Christianity tells us that God incarnated one of the persons of God, in the form of Jesus, in order to build that bridge for us; we can now choose to cross over. [Note 2] That being said, many of us believe we haven't done enough bad things to require God's forgiveness of our debts or maybe we believe we have done enough to make up for those bad things; perhaps we think we are in a better position to judge God than God is to judge us. Regardless of the reason, if we truly do not want to come face to face with God's holiness and to see our full sinfulness, and if we really do not want God's cleansing love and forgiveness, then God is not going to rewrite our beings and force us to do so. Like a good parent, God does not force us to be with Her/Him. --Bertrc (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


  1. If you or somebody you know is considering suicide, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1(800)273-8255
  2. Those rules and practices held up in the religion of most Christian denominations are not how we get into a relationship with God. Instead, they are what entering into a relationship with God looks like

Logical Problem Problem[edit]

The Logical Problem section is of poor quality, and apparently has been for quite some time. I propose, minimally, reinstating the more fleshed out argument that was there before, and removing the question-begging one there now, if there are no objections. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I editted the section, adding what I believe are a few assumptions made in the propositions and conclusions. --Bertrc (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In polytheism[edit]

Is the Problem of Evil problematic too in polytheistic systems, where deities are not all-powerful, sometimes at least seen as morally flawed and imperfect, and sometimes too there's some sort of Fate even gods are subjected to?. As per the Euthyphro dilemma, they seem to be more resilient to such kind of conundrums. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the main reason I don't like "problem of evil" argument. It only works if you postulate an unequivocally "good" god, and if you have some standard for measuring "good". If you postulate a morally ambivalent or evil god - or one who personally defines morality - the argument becomes irrelevant.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and add also omnibenevolence for such entity. It seems whoever decided to add such attribute and others alike to the Judeo-Christian God did not think on the implications. Same those who parrot them without caring for the same. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that true omni-anything always seems to lead you into logical contradictions. The POE is just one example of these. But, in fact, Christians (who actually think about it) don't really go for the omni stuff. It's "maxi" instead - that is to say, as close as you can get to "omni" without triggering the logical contradictions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Yah, Omni-anything always has paradoxes within our universe. If you take a polytheistic religion where they are not omni-whatever, this argument cannot be used to disprove their existence. P.S. I am a Christian who thinks about this a lot and I do go for it! ;-) For me, the transformative explanation (paralleled to experiences in real life where I have reached some good outcome, but do not wish I had reached it without having the trials to get there, effectively, after the fact, transforming those trials that I hated while I was in the midst of experiencing them) resolves it. Basically, the argument makes the assumption --Bertrc (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What would actually happen[edit]

What would happen, if God - omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent - existed, and was acting in-character (making things as good as possible). A sort of "argument from contradiction" (as this timeline is different from ours).


P1: An omnipotent entity can prevent all evil (by definition).
P2: A benevolent entity would prevent all evil if it could (A reasonable assumption given our interaction with suffering and caring for others).
C1: An omnipotent and benevolent entity would therefore remove all evil (P1, P2).
P3: An omnipotent and benevolent entity exists (stipulation).
C2: There should be no evil (C1, P3).
P4: There is no evil, as all creatures are omnibenevolent, and all (if any) evil what existed independently from God (or existed before God) is removed (C2).
C3: Since all creatures are omnibenevolent, God also decided to make them omnipotent and omniscient - so they would do more good deeds with that power, and live better lifes (P4).
P5: All creatures in world are omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and there are infinitely many of them (P4, C3).
C4: For all practical intents and purposes, all creatures in the world are exact copies of God himself.

Is that correct? Could we optimize things even further? After all, 1) God would make everyone Omnibenevolent (as God is Omnibenevolent, and would prevent existence of evil or imperfect things), and therefore 2) God would make all Omnibenevolent things to also be Omnipotent and Omniscient (as God is Omnibenevolent, and would help Omnibenevolent things as much as possible). --Nevpad (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

More over:


P1: If God perseus some practical goal, he would make sure all his creations would have same moral system and alignment as their creator, specifically customized for fulfilling God's practical goal. (A reasonable assumption given our interaction with things we create for practical goals).
P2: If God is also omnipotent and omniscient, he would make sure that value drift (=creature's goals getting distorted or altered) would never happen. (P1) (A reasonable assumption given our interaction with malevolent value drift).
P3: An omnipotent and benevolent entity exists (stipulation).
C2: Therefore, all creatures would have morals and alignments of their God, whatever it is (good, neutral, evil, etc). (P1, P2, P3)
C3: Therefore, regardless of whether God is omnibenevolent or not - if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then every creature would have same system of morals/ethics/alignments. (C2)
P4: Yet in real life, people have different morals/ethics/alignments, and value drift exists (empirical fact).
P5: Therefore, omnipotent and omniscient God doesn't exist (P4, C3, by contradiction).

Is that correct? --Nevpad (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. --Bertrc (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  1. On a purely logical level, you make some jumps that I do not think is supported by any of the propositions or conclusions. eg:
    • In the first P5, I do not see why you make a jump to there being infinitely many of something (either beings or deeds; your phrasing was unclear)
    • In the first P4, I do not see support for why you seem to think that benevolence and good requires all beings to be omnipotent and omniscient (rather than, say, having access to a loving God who is omnipotent and omniscient)
  2. On a philosophical level, you are making some other unsupported assumptions, imho -- eg.
    • In the second P1, you seem to think that forcing all beings to think the same way is an example of "good".
    • In the first P2, you seem to assume that an omnipotent being's only option for expressing benevolence would be to prevent suffering entirely (ie. to prevent suffering from ever occurring in the first place) I think such a path would lead to:
      - "Wow, I am so happy as an artist, since I never have to suffer any writer's block and every stroke of my paint brush renders the exactly perfect expression of my feelings"
      - "How great it is to be a mathematician when every idea and working of the universal mathematical laws is instantly and perfectly clear without having to suffer through the effort of figuring things out"
      - "I love being an athlete since I never have to suffer any pain, limitation or wall that needs to be pushed through to run a marathon."
      - "How wonderful it is to be in love, since my lover and I have never suffered any painful fights that we wind up appreciating, after the fact, and we are simply blissfully in love without having suffered through a journey to get where we are."
      - "Gee, jigsaw puzzles are so fun now that I never have to suffer through the frustration of trying to find the right piece, since every piece I pick up is the exact one I need. :-D
I think omnipotence would provide some additional avenues. After all, what's the point of being all powerful if one would still be limitted to your "Your only choice is to prevent suffering entirely in the first place" proposal? --Bertrc (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Separately, in answer to your original question, I think that if God - omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent - existed, and was acting in-character (making things as good as possible) then we would be facing pretty much what we are facing now . . . ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)


P1: An omnipotent entity can prevent all evil (by definition).
P2: A benevolent entity would prevent all evil if it could (A reasonable assumption given our interaction with suffering and caring for others).
C1: An omnipotent and benevolent entity would therefore remove all evil (P1, P2).
P3: An omnipotent and benevolent entity exists (stipulation).
C2: There should be no evil (C1, P3).
P4: There is no evil, as all creatures are omnibenevolent, and all (if any) evil what existed independently from God (or existed before God) is removed (C2).
C3: Since all creatures are omnibenevolent, God also decided to make them omnipotent and omniscient - so they would do more good deeds with that power, and live better lifes (P4).
P5: All creatures in world are omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent; for most practical intents and purposes, all of those creatures are copies of God himself (P4, C3).
C4: To make more good in the world, God and his godlike creations decided to make as many omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent creatures as possible. (P5; A reasonable assumption, given correlation of amount of good people and amount of "good")
P6: Since God and each of his creations is omniscient and omnipotent, they create infinitely many creatures per planck time. Each newly-created creature also starts to produce more creatures. (C4)
P7: World is filled with infinitely many specimens of God, each omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent, who endlessly and infinitely-quickly self-replicate in exponential progression. (C4, P6)

Is that correct? Did i miss something? Did any part of text got cut? --Nevpad (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel that is incorrect. I think you missed something. Yes, the P7 text got cut, but I hacked it back in for you. --Bertrc (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  1. I think the phrasings (or, perhaps, "interpretations") of your P2, C1 and C2 are off. --Bertrc (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    tl/dr: A benevolent Being that is omnipotent would not have to prevent all suffering from ever occurring (For example, She could redeem any suffering that occurred) so P2 is invalid (imho). --Bertrc (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    • You seem to be reading P2, C1 and C2 to claim that, in order to deal with suffering, the only option available to an all-powerful Being that can do absolutely anything (and, on an aside, that knows how to do anything) would be to prevent any suffering from ever happening in the first place.
    • Since I can think of situations, right here in the natural world, where such an assumption does not seem to apply, I am willing to bet that an all-powerful, all-knowing Wunderkind would have multiple alternatives at Her disposal.
    - Specifically:
    • I have had situations where, in a specific time and moment, suffering did exist (~P2, due to the word "prevent" and ~C2, if you interpret C2 to mean "There should be no evil across all time and space", as opposed to "ultimately, in the end, there should be no evil")
    • However, after the fact, what I experienced was no longer suffering (C1) ie. the suffering was "removed" to the extent that it had no longer been suffering.
    • (I gave a few examples in my previous post, under point #2 )
  2. I don't at all see support in your premises for the conclusions of making an infinite number of creations that are omnipotent and omniscient (But you may have just been having fun after C2 and the joke is going over my head, even though nothing goes over my head, since I am so fast that I would catch it) --Bertrc (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)


  • The last line got cut. How do i fix it? --Nevpad (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    By cheating!!! :-D (I threw in an edit within your previous post that makes that P7 line appear. Feel free to remove it) --Bertrc (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)


  • Bertrc (talk) misinterpreted that. "prevent any suffering from ever happening in the first place" is not the "only" way - but rather, the "optimal" way. It's better to prevent bad thing from happening in the first place, than to let it happen and fix the resulting mess; E.G. it's better to stop a mass bombing from happening, than to arrive too late and fruitlessly try to sew the chunks of civilians back together. Since God is Omnibenevolent, he'll go for optimal route (prevent Evil before it happens) - and since he's Omnipotent and Omniscient, he can't "fail" or "arrive too late", que succeeding on his "prevention" plan every single time. --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
    I feel that still fails in the face of omnipotence. You are merely saying that the only optimal solution available to a being who can do anything is to prevent suffering from happening in the first place. That is still a limit on a limitless being. Such a limit is particularly misplaced, imho, since I don't even need supernatural powers to come up with experiences that were optimal (ie. at least as good or better than any other instances of the situation) even though suffering existed during the actual journey to reach the end. (I threw some examples in my earlier post, under point #2 ) --Bertrc (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Original Sin[edit]

Could Original sin be somehow used in Problem of Evil?

P1: Good being would not punish someone for crimes done by his distant ancestors (A reasonable assumption, given that even the most uncivilized regimes don't punish people for crimes of their grand-grand-grand-fathers, not going beyond 2-3 generations in punishment - and actually civilized regimes don't punish people for crimes of their relatives/ancestors at all).
P2: God exists and is omnibenevolent (stipulation).
C1: Omnibenevolent god would therefore only punish those who did the crime in the first place - and maybe their direct children or grandchildren in worst-case scenario - while their other further descendants would be unharmed (P1, P2).
C2: Only Adam and Eve (and maybe their direct children and grandchildren) would be punished, while their descendants (us and every other human in written history) would still live in Garden of Eden (C1).
P3: Humans live on Earth (empirical fact).
C3: Either God is not Omnibenevolent, or Garden of Eden story didn't happen (C2, P3, by contradiction)

Correct? Besides, assuming punishing people for crimes of their distant ancestors was good - then, everyone on Earth should be jailed, because one of our common ancestors, who lived in Medieval/Bronze Age/Stone Age/etc, was marauder/criminal/cannibal/etc. --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have some corrections or criticisms of this logical chain, say them. --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

As such, altered (logical) timeline would look like this:

  1. Garden of Eden story goes somewhat normally, until Original sin happened.
  2. Then things diverge: only Adam, Eve and Snake were punished - while other humans, the descendants of Adam and Eve, still live in Garden of Eden.
  3. Yet not all humans are lazy sluggards sitting in Garden of Eden. A group, known as "Explorers", was bored - they run out of new things to do, of new trees to eat from. Explorers decided to, well, explore the rest of the Universe. "Go as you please - for you can always return to Garden of Eden when you want" - said God.
  4. One group of Explorers has arrived at Solar System, and colonized it.
  5. Explorers are superior to Our Timeline's Humans. Explorers have all boons which pre-Fall humans did have, such as immortality, flawless regeneration, eternal youth, lack of physiological needs, greater physical characteristics, etc.
  6. Then, other than Explorers being physiologically superior to OTL Humans and Garden of Eden still being accessible, history goes more-or-less normally.

Basically, it's like Our Timeline on Easy Mode. Correct? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

For fuck's sake! We've got another fucking weirdo here. Spud (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
And who is previous "weirdo"? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, what are your arguments for considering me "weirdo"? I was explaining the new sylologistic i made. --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Previous weirdos? BruceGrubb and WriterArtistDC come to mind.
You're being weird for posting your biblical fan fiction here. There's no such thing as original sin. There was no Garden of Eden, no Adam, no Eve, no talking serpent. You're making up an alternate history based on a timeline that never happened in real life. Why the fuck do you think anybody wants to read it here? Spud (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, that part was unneeded, dropping the subject. What you think about my new Problem Of [Something] sylologistics above (one with "Humans live on Earth" line)? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not interested. Spud (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Spud, BruceGrubb and WriterArtistDC?! C'mon, read the archives! Don't I at least get honorable mention? ;-) :-D --Bertrc (talk)
@Jniawqjinhg, I think it is a severe minority of Christians that think like you do. Most of them do not think we are being punished for what Adam and Eve did. Rather, our decision to try to center our lives on things other than God and look to those things for our ultimate identity, worth, joy, security, what-have-you is what causes suffering (That idea is generally considered the underlying theme of Genesis, whether you read it literally or poetically/figuratively) -- Bertrc (talk)

Enemy fighting[edit]

Another variant, about God fighting enemies (eg Armageddon, Book of Revelation, Great flood):

  1. P1 Good being would try to win fights as quickly, effectively and painlessly as possible (A reasonable assumption, given our attempts to do things as efficiently as possible, and relation to weapons restricted by various conventions).
  2. P2 Omnipotent and Omniscient being can instantly and painlessly delete his enemies from reality, a-la Thanos Snap (By definition).
  3. P3 God - Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent - wants to kill/destroy someone (Stipulation).
  4. C1 God would instantly delete all his enemies from reality; if he doesn't do that, he's either not omnipotent, not omniscient or not onmibenevolent (P1, P2, P3).

Correct? --Jniawqjinhg (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, if the founding, first premise of your logical proof (P1) regarding an unlimitted being depends on an assumption that uses decisions we limitted persons make, you might want to continue workshopping the proof. ;-) As for P2, I personally think a good being would want to reconcile Her enemies back to Herself rather than wiping them out of existence (or, regarding those enemies who would no longer exist as themselves if they were reconciled to Her, at least show them the Truth and let their subsequent choices lead to what it may.) --Bertrc (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)