The strongest Christian answer is not a single argument but three layered responses. (1) The logical problem of evil — that an all-good, all-powerful God cannot coexist with any evil — has been answered to most philosophers' satisfaction by Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense. (2) The evidential problem of evil — that the amount and kinds of evil count as evidence against God — is engaged by skeptical theism, soul-making theodicy, and a frank acknowledgement that we do not know all of God's reasons. (3) The pastoral problem — why does my child have cancer — is not finally answered by argument at all. The Christian answer is the cross: God has not stayed at a safe distance from suffering. He has come into it, borne it, and risen to defeat it.
How Muslims often answer the problem
Islamic theology generally handles theodicy through qadar — divine decree. Everything that happens, including evil, occurs by Allah's will. Suffering is a test (Q 2:155-157, Q 67:2); humans will be rewarded for patience; the wisdom of Allah's decree is largely inscrutable to creatures.
This answer has real strengths — it refuses to flatter human reason, and it gives the suffering Muslim a frame for endurance. The Christian who knows it can engage it respectfully. But it does not directly answer the philosophical challenge: a being who decrees the rape of a child even as a test invites the question Christian and Muslim philosophers must both face. Modern Muslim philosophers (al-Ghazālī's classical answer; Tariq Ramadan and Mohammad Hashim Kamali in the modern setting) develop the position more fully.
The logical and evidential problems stated
There are really three problems of evil, and they need separate answers.
The logical problem (Mackie, 1955)
J. L. Mackie argued that the following propositions are formally inconsistent:
- God is omnipotent.
- God is wholly good.
- Evil exists.
If God is all-good he would want to prevent evil. If he is all-powerful he could. So evil's existence proves at least one of (1) or (2) false.
Most analytic philosophers — including atheists like William Rowe — now grant that this version of the argument fails, because of Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense. Plantinga showed that if it is even possible that a world containing free creatures who sometimes choose evil is more valuable than a world without them, the propositions above are not formally inconsistent. The defense does not need to prove this is the actual reason for evil; it only needs to show coherence is logically possible.
The evidential problem (Rowe, 1979)
This is the harder version. William Rowe imagines a fawn dying slowly in a forest fire, with no human knowing or learning from it. Could an all-good God have a good reason for permitting that suffering? Rowe argues: probably not — and the cumulative weight of such cases counts as evidence against God.
The Christian responds with two moves. Skeptical theism argues that finite creatures are very poorly placed to judge whether an infinite God could have reasons for particular evils — God's reasons are likely beyond our cognitive horizon. Soul-making theodicy (John Hick) argues that a world capable of producing morally and spiritually mature souls will contain real risk and real suffering; a world of perfect comfort would not produce love, courage, or compassion.
Neither response is glib. Both insist that real evils remain real evils.
The pastoral problem
Why is my child sick? Why was that village destroyed? This is not a debate. This is a person sitting next to you who needs God, not an argument. Christians who answer the pastoral problem with logical arguments do harm.
The Christian answer here is the cross: God in Christ did not stay at a safe distance from suffering but entered it, was crushed by it, and rose to defeat it. That changes nothing about the evidential argument. It changes everything about the person grieving.
The cross as God's answer
The deepest Christian answer to the problem of evil is not a defense of God in the dock. It is a witness to what God has done about evil.
Isaiah 53 sees a Servant who is wounded for our transgressions, on whom the iniquity of all is laid. The crucified Jesus bears in his own body the verdict against human sin — the moral evil that powers most of the world's suffering. The risen Jesus is God's down-payment on a world made new.
The Christian therefore does not say: "There is no problem of evil." The Christian says: "There is a real problem of evil, and God has stepped into it. The crucified Jesus is the most concentrated answer history has seen — God's own self bearing the worst evil to save the world from it."
Romans 8:18-25 frames the present age as creation groaning, awaiting liberation. Revelation 21:4 names the future: He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more. Christianity is not a system that explains away evil. It is news that evil has met its match in the crucified, risen Lord and is being undone.
A note for the Christian reader
Do not lead with theodicy when a friend is in pain. Lead with presence, prayer, and the gospel. Save the philosophical work for the philosophical conversation.
Naturalism's own problem
It is worth noticing that the strongest atheist response to evil — there is no God; the universe is indifferent — is not free from cost.
On naturalism, the cancer that took your daughter is not a moral evil that God permits. It is just nature doing what nature does. There is no one to blame, but also no one to plead with, no Father who weeps, no future where the wound is healed. The naturalist can avoid the philosophical difficulty by paying a steep practical price: a universe that has no place for the cry that suffering is wrong.
C. S. Lewis put it this way: when he was an atheist, his argument against God was that the universe seemed cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. The Christian and the atheist agree that something is wrong with the world. Christianity's claim is that the standard against which we name it wrong is grounded in the character of God himself — and that God has done something about it.
How conversations with Muslim friends usually unfold
Muslim friends rarely lead with the philosophical problem of evil. More often the conversation arrives there through suffering — a parent dying, a war on the news. The Christian who is patient enough to listen, then gentle enough to speak of the crucified Jesus who has entered every wound, is offering something Islam at its strongest does not quite reach: not just patience for the test, but a Suffering Servant who has finished the work.
Sources to read
Click a source title to read it on an authoritative site (quran.com for the Qurʼān and tafsīr; sunnah.com for ḥadīth).
| Source | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Stanford Encyclopedia: Problem of Evil | Comprehensive philosophical overview of logical, evidential, and theistic responses. |
| Plantinga, *God, Freedom, and Evil* (1974) | The standard analytic statement of the free-will defense. |
| Q 2:155-157 | Suffering as a test; reward for the patient. |
| Q 67:2 | Allah created death and life to test which of you is best in deed. |
| Isaiah 53 | The Servant wounded for our transgressions — God's own answer to evil. |
| Romans 8:18-25 | Present sufferings and the redemption of creation. |
| Revelation 21:1-5 | The future where God dwells with us and wipes every tear away. |
How to think about it
- Distinguish the three problems. Logical, evidential, and pastoral need different answers — not the same one.
- Use the free-will defense for the logical problem. Plantinga's defense has effectively closed the deductive argument among philosophers.
- Be honest with the evidential problem. Skeptical theism and soul-making are real responses, but they do not pretend evil is fine.
- Lead with the cross at the bedside. Pastoral problems require presence, prayer, and the crucified Jesus — not a syllogism.
- Note the cost of naturalism. A universe with no God may dodge the problem of evil at the price of having no answer to it either.
Common objections
- If God is good and powerful, evil should not exist at all.
This is the logical problem. Plantinga's free-will defense shows that if it is even possible for a world containing genuinely free creatures to be more valuable than one without, the existence of evil is logically compatible with God's goodness and power. Most contemporary philosophers, including atheists like Rowe, grant the defense as effective against the deductive form.
- But the *amount* of evil is too much.
This is the evidential problem and is harder. The Christian responses — skeptical theism (we are not in a position to judge whether God has good reasons for particular evils), soul-making (a world that produces virtues will contain real suffering), and the cross (God himself has entered the worst of it) — are each partial. None claims to make evil less awful. They claim only that evil is not evidence against God in the way the argument requires.
- Doesn't the cross make God a divine child abuser?
No. Within the Trinity, the eternal Son freely lays down his own life (John 10:17-18). The Father does not punish a third party. God in Christ bears in himself what humans deserve. See our page on What actually happened on the cross.
- What about animal suffering before humans existed?
A real challenge. Christian responses range from cosmic-fall views (the world's groaning began at human sin and ripples backward) to natural-order views (predation and decay are part of a fallen creation but were not the original good). Neither claims to fully solve the question. Honest is better than glib.
Related questions
Want to walk through this question source by source? Ask in chat — voice or text — and the assistant will quote every passage in full with clickable citations.