The "problem of evil" generally goes something like this.
1. If God had all-power over our universe, he would have been able to prevent the wickedness of Adolf Hitler.
2. If God had all-knowledge of our universe, he would have known how to prevent the wickedness of Adolf Hitler.
3. If God were morally good, he would have wanted to prevent the wickedness of Adolf Hitler.
4. Adolf Hitler was wicked in our universe.
5. Therefore, God was either not able to prevent his wickedness, didn't know how to prevent his wickedness, or didn't want to prevent his wickedness.
6. Therefore, God either did not have all-power over our universe, he did not have all-knowledge of our universe, or he was evil because of Hitler's evil.
The argument known as the "problem of evil," as phrased above, is a special pleading fallacy. The same logic ought to apply to all creators of universes that contain evil or wickedness, but it never does. No other universe creators are maligned for the existence of wickedness or evil in their created universes. Their power over the universe they created is never questioned. Their knowledge of the universe they created is never questioned. Their moral character is never questioned as a result of the evil in their created universe.
But God's is.
This makes the argument a special pleading fallacy, where the one particular circumstance is seen as an exception to the general rules without there being any justification for why it should be seen as an exception.
Let's look at some of the other creators of universes that I'm referring to and place them in the above argument to see how absurd the argument immediately becomes.
1. If C.S. Lewis had all-power over the Narnia universe, he would have been able to prevent the wickedness of the White Witch.
2. If C.S. Lewis had all-knowledge of the Narnia universe, he would have known how to prevent the wickedness of the White Witch.
3. If C.S. Lewis were morally good, he would have wanted to prevent the wickedness of the White Witch.
4. The White Witch was wicked in the Narnia universe.
5. Therefore, C.S. Lewis was either not able to prevent her wickedness, didn't know how to prevent her wickedness, or didn't want to prevent her wickedness.
6. Therefore, C.S. Lewis either did not have all-power over the Narnia universe, he did not have all-knowledge of the Narnia universe, or he was evil because of the White Witch's evil.
Or, another example...
1. If Mark Twain had all-power over Tom Sawyer's universe, he would have been able to prevent the wickedness of Injun Joe.
2. If Mark Twain had all-knowledge of Tom Sawyer's universe, he would have known how to prevent the wickedness of Injun Joe.
3. If Mark Twain were morally good, he would have wanted to prevent the wickedness of Injun Joe.
4. Injun Joe was wicked in Tom Sawyer's universe.
5. Therefore, Mark Twain was either not able to prevent his wickedness, didn't know how to prevent his wickedness, or didn't want to prevent his wickedness.
6. Therefore, Mark Twain either did not have all-power over Tom Sawyer's universe, he did not have all-knowledge of Tom Sawyer's universe, or he was evil because of Injun Joe's evil.
No one in their right mind would argue that Mark Twain couldn't have stopped Injun Joe's wicked deeds because he wasn't powerful enough to do so. No one in their right mind would argue that Mark Twain didn't know how to stop Injun Joe's wicked deeds because he wasn't intelligent enough to do so. And finally, no one in their right mind would argue that Mark Twain is somehow less moral or less good because Injun Joe did wicked things.
The same is true for C.S. Lewis, along with with the creators of the Marvel universe, the D.C. universe, and the Star Wars universe.
So, if creators of universes aren't condemned for the evil events in the universes they create, why do people insist that the creator of our universe should be? The argument, it seems to me, is simply an illogical, special pleading fallacy.
My response here to the "problem of evil" is known as the Palpatine Theodicy.
Comments
As you are aware, special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general principle without justifying the exception.
The important point to bear in mind is that the fallacy arises not solely because the exception is cited, but most importantly, that it is unjustified.
It is not fallacious to cite an exception if it is justified.
In this case, comparing Mark Twain to God is (as Joe Evans has said above) absurd.
The latter, according to your belief system, has created an actual, real, tangible, physical unverse containing actual, real people who can and do suffer actual, real, physical and mental torment.
The former has written some stories.
Ergo it is not special pleading to condemn the latter and not the former.
Tom Sawyer's fence is not tangible to you and I, of course, but this is irrelevant -- you and I are not tangible to God either (nor are we tangible to Tom Sawyer for that matter). We are to God as Tom Sawyer is to Mark Twain. We are invented characters. We are made-up. We are fictional. We are the product of his imagination. We are created.
Joe and Ozy, you are both assuming that, in Christianity, you are somehow just as real as God is. But this is absolutely false. When you impute your false assumptions into Christianity, and then argue against Christianity + your-false-assumptions, you are arguing against a straw-man.
Thank you for that. Would you explain as precisely as possible what you mean by the words "tangible" and "real" in your last comment? It would help greatly to clarify my understanding about what you mean.
If you can't tell the difference between independent, sentient, thinking, beings, and ink on a page, then discussing philosophy might be too much for you. Tom Sawyer isn't an independent thinking being. Tom Sawyer doesn't have "free will", and cannot "decide" anything. He's ink on a page. He's a concept in our minds. He doesn't actually exist somewhere. You can't point to a place where he exists, even fictitiously. We do exist, we are sentient agents, and we can make moral decisions.
And if you need to go to some variant of "God is more real than real" or "We are fictional and imaginary", not only is that just another way of redefining our suffering as amoral, it's just crazy.
I'd still be interested in knowing how a Christian would actually answer the question of the problem of evil.