One of the arguments that claim God does not exist bases its grounds on existence of instances of evil in the world. The underlying principle of such arguments is that if God existed, he would eliminate evil, and since there are various types of evil present in the world, God does not exist. Although it is plausible that God may not exist, mere presence of evil of any kind and magnitude is insufficient for drawing that conclusion. The reason for this is that if God existed in the sense that theists believe he does, he would know more than humans do. The reasoning for one’s actions depends heavily on one’s knowledge, which someone else might lack. If a person does something based on a specific knowledge, the reasoning for that action might seem unjustified for another person who lacks that knowledge. Even though there might be no satisfying reasons for one’s actions, another person’s mere inability to justify them is insufficient to entail lack thereof such reasons. Therefore, it is inappropriate to conclude that God does not exist solely on the basis that there are evils in the world that seem unjustified in light of human knowledge of the world. This justification can be used to effectively refute any argument against existence of God that is based on existence of evil.

God, if existent in the sense that theists believe he does, would be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good. Consequently, God, by nature, would not engage in any act of evil. This means that the net effect of any action God performs would necessarily need to be good. Further, God would be the sole creator and primary cause of the world and everything in it. Through simple means of observation, it is obvious that there are many instances of evil in the world. Hurricane Katrina, September 11th attacks, and the Holocaust are a few examples of numerous others. At first glance, the occurrence of such evils in the world that an omnipotent, omniscient, and good God created is puzzling. This would mean that God intentionally created a world that contains unnecessary instances of evil. That, in turn, would entail that God cannot exist in the sense that theists believe he does. At a closer look, however, existence of some of those evils could potentially be justified by appealing to human’s possession of free-will.

For example, the Holocaust and the September 11th attacks are both instances of moral evil, which result from humans’ choice to do evil acts. This type of evil can be explained as being a consequence of humans’ possession of free will. The explanation suggests, since having free will is better than not having it, God created humans with free will, and thus gave them the ability to choose to do evil. Thus, the argument concludes, moral evil is not due to God’s inability to eliminate evil, but rather to humans’ abuse of their free will. However, this justification fails to address why God did not create the free-willed humans and the available choices such that they could always freely choose between good things. If God were omnipotent then he would be capable of doing so, and his failure to do so would cast doubt on his goodness.

To weaken the belief of God’s existence even further, free will explanation does not account for the instances of natural evils. For instance, Hurricane Katrina was not due to some evil choice of an immoral person. No human could have brought it about no matter how evil she may have been. Nevertheless, Hurricane Katrina came about and destroyed lives of many innocent people, for example children. This injustice is unjustifiable by the free-will defence.

There are many other instances of injustice in the world. Another example is wrongful conviction of the innocent. Many innocent people have been wrongly convicted and punished for

crimes they have not committed. Moreover, their convictions have allowed the people who actually committed the crime to get away with their evil acts, and avoid being punished for them. This is clearly an instance of injustice. More importantly, this type of injustice is not due to misuse of human free will. It is actually quite the opposite. Wrongful convictions occur in a system in which humans intentionally seek to maintain justice i.e. the legal system. Thus, it seems that even when humans intend to choose good over evil, it is quite possible that they are unable to distinguish between the two.

That seems to be at odd with existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God. If God created humans with free will, and thus enabled them to freely choose good or evil, then he would have done so in a way that humans could clearly differentiate between what is good and what is evil. An evil free act would not be morally evil if the actor intends and believes she is performing a good act and is unaware that her act is actually evil. These types of evil occurrences do not seem to lead to a greater goodness. The same is true for the evil that natural disasters bring upon people. At least some of the people affected by the natural evils are innocent and are undeserving of the pain afflicted upon them. These instances of distressing pain and injustice are independent of free-will and are beyond the scope of human ability to eliminate and even cope with in most cases. This undermines the existence of God even to a higher degree. If God created people with the inability to cope with certain things, then he would actually be an evil God if he purposely brings upon innocent people (or fails to prevent) that which they are unable to cope with.

God, if existent, would be the creator of the world which includes seemingly unnecessary and unjust evils. Since these evils are not caused by free-willed agents, they must be either directly caused by God or indirectly from another state of affairs that he directly caused. Assuming God exists, his failure to eliminate injustice (an instance of unnecessary evil) would imply that he lacks at least one of the following three attributions: omnipotence, omniscience, or wholly goodness. Lack of any of them would suggest that God does not exist in the sense that theists argue he does. This may not prove that God does not exist, but it certainly decreases the logical likelihood of God’s existence. To prove something conclusively, is to show it is objectively the case. However, when it comes to God, nothing is ever truly objective, because God is an unfixed notion. Precisely because of this lack of objectivity, this argument undermining God’s existence can be accounted for.

It is true that there are pains and sufferings in the world that can neither be caused nor prevented by humans. It is also true that to humans these instances of injustice seem to be unjustified and unnecessary. However, since humans are not the cause of them, then the justification should not come from them. Whoever is the cause of an action is the one who needs to justify it. If God were the cause of all the seemingly unjustified evils, then he is the one who reasoned and decided to cause them. The reasons God, if existent, has to decide to perform any action would be dependent on the things he knows about the world. Since God would be omniscient if he existed, then his knowledge would be perfect and complete. Obviously, human’s knowledge of the world is not nearly perfect or complete. Thus, God would know at least some things that humans do not. Among the knowledge that God possesses and humans lack, could lie

the justification for the evils that humans are unable to justify. The belief that there is more to the world than human knowledge can account for usually accompanies the belief that God exists. For example, many classical theists believe in the Judgement Day, on which the ultimate justice supposedly will prevail. On this day, everyone will allegedly receive the punishments or rewards they deserve. In the light of such beliefs, unjustified pain and suffering could ultimately be justified.

Therefore, if one presupposes God’s existence in the theistic sense, the evils that exist in the world would not seem to be inconsistent with his existence. However, if one considers these evils without presumption that God is existent, then those unjustified evils would well decrease the logical likelihood of God’s existence. It may indeed be true that God does not exist, but the presupposition of his existence is not inconsistent with existence of any type and magnitude of evil in the world. Thus, the existence of evil in the world would not by itself prove that God does not exist.