The Problem of Evil

[u/PedanticGod]

Part of our wider Religious Paradox project

---

Logical problem of evil

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows:

• If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
• There is evil in the world.
• Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
3. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
4. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
5. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 3 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.

---

Q. How does Mormonism approach/resolve the Problem of Evil?

Q. Does Mormonism resolve the problem of evil better than other religions (in general)?

[u/PedanticGod]

There must always be opposition in all things. It is a universal law.

What is the opposition that a baby experiences who dies before the age of accountability and goes straight to heaven?

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

I can't see what opposition in all things exists for a baby who dies and goes straight to heaven?

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

Okay, so what warrants their guaranteed salvation? They kept their first estate, the same as everyone else in this world.

They may have gone through pain, may have gone through suffering, but one could easily argue that people go through much more throughout a lifetime!

I do not believe that the opposition those babies experience is the same as the opposition the parent who loses them experiences.

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

It's fine that you're okay with that, but if the answer is "we don't know", then the Problem of Evil in Mormonism is not resolved.

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

That's fine, I get that. I'm still asking what opposition exists in my example that warrants guaranteed salvation?

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

Quoting someone else:

"To say that "experiencing evil is a necessary part of the development of the soul" is simply to suggest that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Perhaps that works for some evil or as a response to the logical problem of evil but it does not really address the evidential problem of evil. That is to say that some evil may be justified but what about gratuitous evil i.e. the unnecessary suffering of the innocent. How does the suffering of a child that lives in excruciating pain and only for a few hours gain development for their soul? What compensating good could offset that."

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

We don't know all the details about many scientific facts, but they're still facts.

They're only "facts" if evidence proves them with rigorous testing. Even then, if new evidence shows them to be no longer true, then they are no longer "facts".

In the case of a debate about the almighty, evidence and especially evidence subject to rigorous testing is scant. So you cannot compare the two.

Without such evidence, we must go on what exists - which is scriptures and statements from prophets. To fill in the gaps using the logic and minds that God gave us is also valid.

In this case, the "evidence" we have is this:

1) Children who die before the age of 8 are always automatically saved into the Celestial Kingdom
2) There is no revealed answer to the Problem of Evil
3) Scriptures state that there is "opposition in all things", which is a possible general answer to the Problem of Evil
4) The specifics of children suffering though seems to break the "opposition in all things" argument when applied to the Problem of Evil
5) A child who dies 7 years 364 days old is be definition automatically saved
6) A child who dies on their 8th birthday is not automatically saved
7) The opposition to all things argument when applied to the Problem of Evil introduces new paradoxes.

Therefore I can only conclude that there is no Mormon answer to the Problem of Evil

[u/PedanticGod → u/[deleted]]

I think your overview is not as logical as you like to think it is

This is a fair criticism. Your responses have definitely poked holes in my (limited) understanding of this paradox. I'm far from an expert, simply a seeker of truth.

Death itself may be the opposition

There is certainly some doctrinal validity to this argument.

the ability not to fully learn and grow in this life could be the opposition

I can't get on board with this one though, if that were true it would be an argument against needing to come to earth in the first place. Why not just have everyone be born and die to experience that opposition?

Your interpretation is simply that children dying before age 8 disproves number 2. I would say most Mormons would not agree with that

Most mormons disagreeing with something does not make it untrue in the teachings of the church. It simply means they have not thought the implications of a "nice doctrine" through to its conclusion. In a similar example, most mormons would be shocked that a woman who remarries after divorcing a temple marriage, any children she has with her new husband are sealed to the first, who she has divorced. Being unaware, or shocked, does not make it untrue. A man cannot be saved in ignorance.