Evidential Problem of Evil

There is something that is known as "The evidential problem of evil"

In order to address this fully, the topic should touch on a few things first.
First, this dilemma of evil and God co-existing, has given birth to the logical problem of evil. The simplest form of the problem is: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; yet evil exists. J.L. Mackie labels this as “[seemingly] to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true, the third would be false.” Certainly most can see immediately why this leans toward being true, or at the very least, why it is important to have a defense against, should one assert the first two premises: an existing God that is wholly good and fully powerful. Thus the believer is pressed somewhat to find an answer to this apparent logic problem, but most have found strong answers to this logic problem.

However, if one is on the other side of the fence, arguing that God does not exist, this logical problem of evil can quickly turn into “an evidential problem of evil”. Michael Martin concedes that it is not a logical contradiction in theory for God and evil to exist as the previous suggests, but rather evil is evidence against God’s existence .

The outline of his argument against God is basically as follows:

1) An omnipotent God could prevent the abundance of evil unless the evil were logically necessary
2) A wholly good God would prevent the great abundance of evil unless he had sufficient reason to allow it.
3) Evil exists in great abundance only if either God has a sufficient reason to allow the abundance of evil or if it were logically necessary (From (1) and (2))
4) There is an abundance of evil in our world that neither God has sufficient reason to allow nor that is logically necessary.
5) If one has reason to believe evil exists and 2 and 3 are not true (4) is true, then evil counts as evidence against God’s existence
6) One has good reason(s) to believe 4 is true
7) Evil therefore, counts towards God’s non-existence
8) There is little/no evidence to count towards God’s existence
9) It is most reasonable to believe God does not exist, as there is strong evidence against, and weak to no evidence for.

There is an inscrutability argument / defense that is asserted often at times too. In short, this says that God's ways are not our ways, and as finite beings, we can never hope to fully understand the infinite. So in discussion, it was posed whether or not the I.D. (inscrut. defense) was a good one as a rebuttal to the evidential problem of evil.


If we look at the account of Job, we see this argument clearly. After much suffering, as well as mental exercises, debate and berate between Job and his friends, the Lord comes and speaks out of a storm “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2) God’s illustration of just how much Job does not know, and how limited his – and the rest of man’s – power is stretches for several chapters. At the conclusion, Job, who is labeled as blameless and upright (Job 1:1), seems to adhere to and accept the inscrutability argument:
Then Job replied to the LORD: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6)

Many Christians might instantly point to this example as proof that the inscrutability defense is strong, for it shows that we are not in a position to know God’s will and purpose in matters, for God levels it undeniably right at Job.

Whether or not the inscrutability position is ultimately valid is not the question at this time – even if the evidential problem is flawed. One must be certain to stay focused to the original question of: “Is this an adequate answer to the evidential problem of evil?”
For example, if we look at a poorly constructed argument of:
1) God is Love
2) Love is blind
3) God is Ray Charles

And then counter the notion that God is Ray Charles with a perfectly sound argument of:
1) Automobiles generally have four wheels
2) My Buick is an automobile
3) My Buick probably has four wheels

As one can see, we have failed to adequately address the original argument, despite the fact that the rebuttal is sound. Therefore, in order to offer a strong answer to the evidential problem of evil, we must not only present a sound argument, but one that addresses issues raised directly or by undermining premises. I believe that the inscrutability defense does both in a round about way if done properly.