The Classical Dilemma of Evil

Why We Need the Formal Argument

In the last post, we saw that the problem of evil can be experienced on three levels: emotional, intellectual, and dramatic. The emotional level cries out for comfort; the dramatic level shows us how fragile love and goodness can be in history. But at the intellectual level, the challenge sharpens into a question of logic: can the existence of God and the existence of evil be affirmed together without contradiction?

This is where the problem has its greatest weight as an argument. If the claim is true that belief in God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil, then faith collapses. No matter how comforting it might feel, it would not be rationally defensible. That is why classical thinkers took this problem seriously and put it into precise form.

Aquinas: Infinite Goodness and Contraries

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the Summa Theologiae, presents the objection this way:

• If one of two contraries is infinite, the other must be destroyed.

• God is said to be infinite goodness.

• If God exists, no evil could exist in the world.

• But evil does exist.

• Therefore, God does not exist.

This is a clean, logical statement. If goodness and evil are truly contraries, and if God’s goodness is infinite, then the presence of any evil seems to cancel out the claim that God is real.

Augustine: The Goodness–Power Puzzle

St. Augustine frames the problem in slightly different terms:

• If God is all-good, He would will all good and no evil.

• If God is all-powerful, He would accomplish all that He wills.

• But evil exists.

• Therefore, either God is not all-good, or He is not all-powerful—or both.

Here, Augustine captures the dilemma that has echoed through history. It seems that believers must give up either God’s goodness or God’s power to make sense of the world. If God is good but weak, He cannot stop evil. If He is powerful but not good, He may cause or tolerate evil without concern.

C.S. Lewis: The Happiness Assumption

In modern times, C.S. Lewis restated the argument in terms that resonate with ordinary experience:

• If God is good, He wants His creatures to be happy.

• If God is powerful, He can do whatever He wants.

• But creatures are not happy.

• Therefore, God lacks either goodness or power, or both.

Lewis’s version sharpens the intuitive sense that suffering is not just about philosophical categories; it touches on the deepest longing of the human heart. If God desires our happiness, why are so many of His creatures miserable?

The Clarified Argument

All these formulations can be summed up in one simple claim: there appears to be a contradiction if we affirm all four of the following:

1. God exists.

2. God is all-good.

3. God is all-powerful.

4. Evil exists.

If the first three are true, the fourth must be false. If the fourth is true, at least one of the first three must be false. And yet, Christianity insists that all four are true.

This is the intellectual core of the problem of evil. It is not simply that we dislike suffering. It is that, on the surface, it seems to expose a fatal flaw in the very idea of God.

Why This Matters

At this point, the problem of evil is at its sharpest edge. We cannot solve it by saying, “Well, everyone suffers,” or “That’s just life.” We must face the apparent contradiction head-on. Either belief in God collapses under its own weight, or there is something deeper that resolves the tension.

This post sets the stage for the next part of our series, where we will explore the major attempted solutions: atheism, pantheism, naturalism, idealism, and theism. Each tries to resolve the dilemma in a different way. Only then can we see why Christianity insists that affirming all four truths is not contradictory, but coherent—and ultimately hopeful.