If God is good and powerful, why is there so much evil and suffering?
Suffering can be an argument against God, but it can also be a cry of pain. Christians should know the difference.
You are viewing a shareable lesson page. Return to the full course to have this study count toward your progress and mark it complete there.
Begin with the conversation workshop, then apply the same method to the problem of evil and to origins and worldview.
The positive case is built. Now ask the hard question many people feel most deeply: what do we do with evil and suffering?
Evil is a serious challenge, but it is not a simple contradiction of God. The logical, evidential, and personal problems of evil need different kinds of answers.
The problem of evil is one of the strongest objections people raise against Christianity, and it is also often personal rather than merely philosophical. We need to know what kind of question someone is asking before we decide how to answer it.
Three different problems often get mixed together
When someone asks why a good and powerful God allows evil, there are several different questions that can be hidden inside that one sentence.
The logical problem of evil says that God and evil cannot possibly exist together. That claim is too strong. If it is even possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing some evil, then there is no strict contradiction between God and evil.
A free-will defense gives one possible reason for moral evil, meaning evil that results from the choices of moral creatures. If real freedom is a genuine good, then giving creatures meaningful freedom may also include the possibility that they use that freedom badly. This does not explain every evil event, but it is enough to show that God and moral evil are not logically contradictory.
The evidential problem is harder. It does not say God and evil are impossible together. It says that the amount, severity, or apparently pointless nature of suffering makes God less likely.
We don't see every consequence of an event or everything God may be doing through history. That does not mean we know God’s reason for a particular tragedy. Usually, we do not. The point is that “I cannot see a good reason” is not the same as “there cannot be a good reason.”
We also have to consider the other evidence for God's existence. We have already built a positive case for God from several different areas, and all of that evidence still has to be weighed.
Christianity also does not answer suffering only with a philosophical argument. God enters human suffering in Christ, defeats death through the resurrection, promises final judgment, and promises the restoration of creation.
If someone is grieving, do not begin by giving them a syllogism. A personal cry of pain and a philosophical objection are not the same thing, even if they use the same words.
Bottom line: Evil is a serious challenge, but it does not create a contradiction with God or erase the positive case for His existence.
Think about it: What does a free-will defense actually accomplish?
Use what you learned in a different situation
A coworker who has just lost a parent asks, “If God is good, why would he let this happen?” How would you respond differently than you would in a formal debate while still being truthful?
The full course lets you write your response, compare it with a model, and track your progress.
Practice this inside the full courseQuestions this argument still has to face
“Some suffering seems completely pointless.”
Some suffering looks completely pointless from where we stand, and we should not pretend to know God’s specific reason for it. The move to question is from “I cannot see a sufficient reason” to “there cannot be one,” especially given how limited our perspective is and the other evidence for God.
“Free will does not explain earthquakes, disease, or childhood suffering.”
That’s correct, free will does not explain earthquakes, disease, or every case of childhood suffering. The free-will defense mainly shows how moral evil can be compatible with God. Natural suffering requires a broader discussion involving a stable natural order, human finitude, the fallen creation, providence, and the limits of what we know.
Use this in a real conversation
- First figure out whether you are hearing an intellectual objection or a person in pain. The words may sound similar, but the response should not.
- Grief is not the moment to lead with a syllogism. Listen, care for the person, and do not pretend to know God’s specific reason for what happened.
- For the evidential objection, suffering has to be weighed with the rest of the evidence for and against God. It should not be treated as though every other line of evidence suddenly disappeared.
Do not use a philosophical answer as though it explains a particular person’s tragedy. The argument can remove a contradiction without telling us God’s specific reason for every instance of suffering.
Sources for further study
- Reasonable Faith | Apologetics Seminar: The Problem of Evil: Separates logical, evidential, and emotional forms and presents free-will and probability responses.
- Ligonier | The Problem of Evil: Treats evil within a Christian evidences framework and addresses sovereignty, freedom, and providence.
- Stand to Reason | The Problem of Evil: A practical Christian response emphasizing clarification of the objection and moral grounding.
- Reasonable Faith | The Problem of Evil: A concise treatment of logical compatibility, evidential probability, and Christian hope.
- Ligonier | Contending for the Truth: Includes a presentation addressing the problem of evil within the Christian case for God.
Continue in the full course to track your progress and explore more lessons.
Return to full course for more lessons