Accusing a Benevolent Creator

Is God at fault for creating a world where evil exists?

If God was alone before he created the world, and He created the world with a large amount of evil in it when He could have created it with less, did He do wrong?  As generally accepted by most Christians, especially Latter Day Saints, God is a perfect being who simply cannot do wrong.  However, by the principle which states “To do wrong is to harm someone else,” God harmed the inhabitants of the earth by creating evil and is at fault.  Assuming the conditions and principles are true, God did do wrong.  Fortunately for those in defense of God’s benevolence and perfection, the principle is faulty.

The principle is a very vague statement which simply cannot define the concept of wrongdoing.  It can be disproved with the following scenario: A car is speeding towards a young woman in the middle of the road, and both she and the driver of the car are unaware of the situation and likely collision.  A man runs toward and tackles the young woman, moving her out of the way of the car as it just misses them.  The young woman is slightly bruised and scraped from being thrown on the ground, but thanks the man for doing what he did.  Here, the man intentionally and willingly harmed the young woman, so by the definition of the principle, he did wrong.  Most people will agree that the man’s actions were not wrong, but good, as he saved her life.  Therefore, the principle cannot stand as written.

In order to continue this argument, the principle must be redefined.  A clearer, more specific, and more comprehensive definition is as follows: To do wrong is to make a choice that will cause a greater amount of harm to yourself or another than another better known choice.  This definition has its faults too, as it mandates that someone does wrong unless they always make a choice that results in the best outcome for everyone, including his or her own self.  However, because God is perfect, this new definition can apply to Him easily.

In order for God to do wrong according to the new definition, He must make a choice worse than an alternative.  God’s choice to create the world with evil in it is clear, as God created the world, and one can clearly observe that evil exists in the world.  One may argue over what defines evil, but for this argument, one may assume that the definition of evil is the making of profoundly bad decisions by earth’s inhabitants.  Some examples of evil by this definition are rape, murder, and extreme violence.  Humans, not knowing the mysteries of God, assume that He was able to create the earth with less or no evil.  Perhaps one way God could accomplish this would be to simply cause people to be more benevolent.  There are two problems with this assumption.  First, God may be constrained in a way that humans are unaware of.  Second, God may be acting in a way that is in our best interests but which we do not know about.

Without the addition of further beliefs, this argument reaches a hypothetical conclusion.  In traditional Christian theology, God is usually all powerful and knows no constraints on His actions.  Additionally, if it is assumed that there is no life after that on earth or if the afterlife does not make use of anything people learn on earth, it is difficult to see any benefit to evil existing in the world.  One can successfully question the deduction that God did wrong, but no further deductions can be made without the introduction of additional beliefs.

To continue, one must take advantage of the beliefs of a certain sect.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints provides the necessary material to continue and make an argument, but it will only be convincing to those who hold these beliefs.  Two principles of the Church can be used: first, all people have agency, or the ability to freely make decisions no matter what the situation.  Second, there is a life after this in which people use experience they gained on earth to add to their wisdom and progression.  These new principles can successfully address the problems with the assumption that God could make a better choice than to create the world with evil.

The first principle acts as a constraint against God.  It may be hard for some to accept that God can be limited, but if people are able to act as they freely choose in any situation, then He must be unable to control a person’s will.  Therefore, if someone makes a decision that leads to the existence of evil, God can do nothing to directly stop it.  One may argue that God can still influence the decisions of people indirectly, which is true.  However, the second principle allows one to see an opportunity for benefit of the existence of evil.  If there is another life after this in which people can utilize what they learned on earth, people can benefit from studying the effects of evil and what to do in response to it.  If all people were benevolent on an earth without evil, they would gain nothing of importance out the experience of life.  Having evil in the world is necessary for people to become wiser.

While this argument can reach no conclusion further than that which acquits God of necessarily doing wrong without further material to work with, the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints allows one to conclude that God acted in the best interests of people in general by allowing evil in the world through His influence and because in some cases He could not act because of the constraint of the people’s agency.

Author's Note

Have fun responding. This paper is also from my philosophy class.