A netfriend wrote:

Resolutions to the problem of evil generally entail one of the following:

1) What humans consider evil or suffering is an illusion or unimportant. Problem: suffering is FELT. If it is an illusion, this does not matter. Suffering is suffering whether real or imagined

2) Events thought to be evil are not really so (such as deaths by natural disaster)

Problem: evil/suffering encompasses much more than natural disasters

3) A perfect God is not only good but also evil, since perfection implies no lacking, including not lacking that which is evil. A lacking of evil would imply that there is something external to his all-encompassing perfection. This is related to monistic philosophies such as advaita, or pantheism. Problem: this entails accepting that God is not wholly benevolent; indeed, he can be infinitely evil

4) Evil is the consequence of God permitting humans to have free will, or God may intend evil and suffering as a test for humanity. Without the possibility to choose to do good or evil acts humanity would be nothing but robots. Problem: suffering that is NOT within our control (natural disasters, disease etc)

5) Evil is the consequence, not cause, of people not observing God’s revealed will. Universal reciprocated love would solve most of the problems that lead to the evils discussed here. Problem: suffering occurs to innocent animals who never got the opportunity to observe God’s revealed will. No-one can control others to engage in universal love (not even Jesus, as history has shown)

6) God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself (which, by definition, He alone is infinitely entitled to, without vanity). He allows evil to exist so that we will appreciate goodness all the more, in the same way that the blind man healed by Jesus appreciated his sight more so than those around him who had never experienced blindness. Problem: a week-old child that dies of hunger has not developed the faculties to appreciate good versus evil

7) God’s divine plan is good. What we see as evil is not really evil; rather, it is part of a divine design that is actually good. Our limitations prevent us from seeing the big picture. Problem: if what we see as evil is not evil, there is no moral reason for me not to rob and kill you if I can get away with it. We CAN imagine the bigger picture but it gives no clues as to how evil can in fact be good. If God’s divine plan is good, we should be able to recognise it as such, because if man’s innate moral code is God-given, it should be reliable

8) God created perfect angels and perfect humans with a free will. Some of his creations choose independence and lost their perfection: they began to sin, which resulted in evil doing and death. For a while God will allow this to continue, so that it can be proven that his creations can not be happy while independent from God because this was the challenge which caused the rebellion in the first place. In due time God will restore the people who choose to depend on God to perfection and so bring an end to sin and with it an end to evil. Problem: again, suffering is not just for humans – what about the poor animals? Also, many people do live happily in so-called independence from God. I live independently of God because I cannot believe in him (note I do not have a choice) and I am happy

9) God is a righteous judge; people get what they deserve. If someone suffers, that is because they committed a sin that merits such suffering. (This is also known as the just world hypothesis). Problem: there are innocents who suffer – from nuns to foetuses

10) Suffering is educational. It makes us better people. problem: it’s not educational or character-building for foetuses or animals

11) Evil is one way that God tests humanity, to see if we are worthy of His grace. Problem: again, how can evil test a foetus?

12) Evil and pain exist in this world only. This world is only a prelude to the afterlife, where no pain will exist. The scales of justice are balanced in the afterlife. Problem: Firstly, this seems to be a pointless exercise. Secondly, it implies that a good, non-suffering Christian is in for suffering in the next world

13) Absolute evil is not actually real. Rather, it is only a condition of not enough goodness. (See also mention of William Hatcher’s explanation.)

Evil is relative to good; neither good nor evil could exist without both existing simultaneously. Problem: this is a common fallacy – “black cannot exist without white”. Actually, in a world without light, black could exist without white and vice versa. Similarly, to an omnipotent God, good could exist without evil; indeed, it is what is posited for Heaven!

14) Karma: All good is balanced by evil, and it is only when we achieve proper balance that our reincarnation ends. This explains why an infant may be born into misery, due to experiences they will have later in that life, or in previous or later lives. Problem: the concept comes from the one religion that doesn’t require a deity! Indeed, this one may be right, if we substitute ‘karma’ with ‘nature averaging out’

15) One of the conflicting assumptions is wrong: Drop either the assumption that God is omniscient, or omnipotent, or perfectly good. See the entry on the subject of God and omnipotence for more details on this point. Problem: the problem is obvious – it dispenses with one or more fundamental attributes of what we understand by God

16) Religions such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism, and even some Christian groups, dispense with the issue by embracing various forms of dualism, in which God is opposed by an evil counterpart, and is therefore not omnipotent. Maltheists go even further than the Gnostics, in a sense, by saying that God simply is evil himself. To them, the problem of evil is not a problem at all, and is neatly resolved by acknowledging that an omnipotent benevolent God would not create a world in which there was evil, concluding that God, assuming he exists, is either not omnipotent, not benevolent, or perhaps both. (They frequently add that if God is not omnipotent but claims that he is, he is thus lying, and consequently is also justifiably deemed evil in nature.)

17) Most atheists believe that statements about God are meaningless. Some atheists believe that the problem of evil can be used to prove that God does not exist by the method of reductio ad absurdum. However, as maltheists point out, this method does not prove that God does not exist, but rather that if he does exist he is not omnipotent or benevolent, as he and his followers might claim him to be. Problem: errm, actually I can’t come up with a problem with this one…sorry!