The Problem of Evil Presupposes God

Of all the objections raised against the existence of God, none carries more emotional force than the problem of evil. “If God is all-powerful and all-good,” the skeptic demands, “then why does evil exist?” The argument has been articulated by philosophers from Epicurus to David Hume to J. L. Mackie, and it remains the weapon of choice for popular atheism. On the surface, it appears devastating. Beneath the surface, however, it contains a fatal flaw: the very question presupposes the God it seeks to deny.

The Argument Stated

The logical problem of evil is typically formulated as follows: (1) If God exists, He is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. (2) An omnipotent being could prevent evil. (3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent evil. (4) Evil exists. (5) Therefore, God does not exist. The argument is clean, intuitive, and emotionally compelling. But it depends on a premise that the skeptic rarely examines: the objective reality of evil.

When the atheist says “evil exists,” he is not merely reporting a personal preference. He is not saying, “I dislike suffering.” He is making a moral claim with universal force. He is asserting that certain states of affairs, the torture of children, the slaughter of innocents, the exploitation of the vulnerable, are genuinely, objectively wrong. Not wrong for him alone, but wrong in themselves, wrong regardless of cultural opinion, wrong whether anyone believes them to be wrong or not.

This is the hidden assumption that unravels the entire argument.

The Presupposition Exposed

If evil is objectively real, then objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist, then there must be a standard of goodness that transcends human opinion, culture, and evolutionary development. The moment the atheist appeals to evil as a genuine feature of reality rather than a mere preference, he has stepped onto ground that his worldview cannot support.

Consider the alternative. In a purely materialist universe, what is evil? Atoms collide. Organisms compete for resources. Stronger creatures consume weaker ones. Natural selection rewards survival, not morality. On what basis does the materialist declare that the suffering of one collection of atoms at the hands of another collection of atoms is “evil”? He may dislike it. His evolutionary conditioning may produce feelings of revulsion. But dislike is not the same as objective moral wrongness, and evolutionary conditioning explains why we feel certain impulses without establishing that those impulses correspond to moral reality.

C. S. Lewis articulated this insight with characteristic clarity. Before his conversion, Lewis had used the problem of evil against Christianity. But upon reflection, he recognized the incoherence of his position. His argument against God depended on a concept of justice that had no foundation apart from God. As he reasoned, a crooked line implies a straight line; a shadow implies a light. To call the world unjust, one must have a standard of justice that stands outside the world.

The Moral Argument in Reverse

What the skeptic intends as an argument against God actually becomes, upon examination, an argument for God. The reasoning proceeds as follows:

(1) If objective evil exists, then objective moral values exist. (2) If objective moral values exist, then a transcendent moral Lawgiver exists. (3) Objective evil exists. (4) Therefore, a transcendent moral Lawgiver exists.

This is the moral argument for God’s existence operating in reverse. The skeptic supplies premise (3) himself. He insists that evil is real. Very well. If evil is real, then goodness is real. If goodness is real, it must be grounded in something beyond human convention. And that grounding is precisely what theism provides: a God who is the ultimate standard of goodness, whose nature defines what is right, and against whose character all moral evil is measured.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1, KJV)

The psalmist’s declaration is not mere name-calling. It is a philosophical observation. To deny God while simultaneously relying on moral categories that only God can ground is the deepest form of intellectual foolishness. It is to saw off the branch on which one is sitting.

The Presuppositional Approach

This line of reasoning belongs to what theologians and apologists call the presuppositional method. Rather than beginning with neutral ground and reasoning upward to God’s existence, the presuppositionalist examines the assumptions that underlie every worldview and asks: Which set of presuppositions makes human experience intelligible?

The atheist presupposes a universe of matter and energy governed by impersonal laws. Within that framework, he must account for the existence of objective moral values, rational thought, the uniformity of nature, and human dignity. He cannot do so. Moral values become preferences. Rational thought becomes chemical reaction. The uniformity of nature becomes an ungrounded assumption. Human dignity becomes a useful fiction.

The Christian presupposes a universe created and sustained by a personal, rational, moral God. Within that framework, objective moral values are grounded in God’s nature. Rational thought is possible because human minds are made in the image of a rational Creator. The uniformity of nature is guaranteed by a faithful God who sustains His creation. Human dignity is intrinsic because every person bears the image of God.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20, KJV)

Paul’s declaration in Romans 1 is not merely a theological assertion but an epistemological one. The knowledge of God is not hidden; it is suppressed. The evidence is not absent; it is refused. Every human being, including every atheist, lives as though moral values are real, as though reason is trustworthy, as though human life has inherent worth. These convictions are borrowed capital from a theistic worldview that the atheist officially rejects but practically cannot escape.

Answering the Emotional Force

It must be acknowledged that the problem of evil carries emotional weight that no philosophical argument can simply dissolve. The parent who has buried a child does not need a syllogism. The survivor of atrocity does not require a lecture on presuppositions. Suffering is real, and the Bible never minimizes it.

But here, too, the Christian worldview provides what atheism cannot: meaning in suffering. Scripture teaches that God entered into human suffering in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not observe evil from a distance; He endured it. The cross is the definitive answer to the problem of evil, not because it explains every instance of suffering, but because it demonstrates that God Himself has borne the full weight of human sin and its consequences.

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” (Isaiah 53:4, KJV)

The God of the Bible does not stand aloof from suffering. He enters it, absorbs it, and redeems it. The cross simultaneously acknowledges the horror of evil and demonstrates God’s sovereign plan to overcome it. The resurrection declares that evil, death, and suffering do not have the final word.

The Atheist’s Dilemma

The skeptic who wields the problem of evil faces an uncomfortable choice. He may abandon objective moral categories altogether, in which case his objection collapses into mere personal distaste. Or he may retain objective moral categories, in which case he must account for their existence, and the only adequate account is the God he denies. Either way, the argument fails on its own terms.

This does not mean that every question about suffering has an easy answer. The book of Job stands as a permanent reminder that God does not always explain His purposes to His creatures. But the absence of a specific explanation is not the same as the absence of a sufficient ground. The Christian does not claim to understand every instance of evil. The Christian claims that a good and sovereign God governs all things, that evil is real and will be judged, and that redemption has already been accomplished through the blood of Christ.

The problem of evil, rightly understood, does not lead away from God. It leads directly to Him. For without God, there is no evil, only atoms in motion, signifying nothing. The very cry of the human heart against injustice, that cry presupposes a Justice that atheism cannot provide and that only the living God can guarantee.

---

Dr. Peter J. Carter is a theologian, author, and the founder of Theology in Focus. He holds a D.Min. with a concentration in theology and apologetics and has spent over two decades teaching, preaching, and writing to make theology accessible to every believer.