A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 2Harlington School · Philosophy · Metaphysics of God

Defining evil; the logical and evidential problems

God knows, can, and is good — and evil is real. Kind one: a contradiction. Kind two: the evidence.

The
big
question

Can the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God be reconciled with the suffering we actually observe?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The problem line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

IMPOSSIBLE · the beliefs contradict each other (kind one)UNLIKELY · the evidence counts against God (kind two)

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

This lesson sets out the problem in two kinds. Every other lesson in this unit is an answer to it: free will, soul-making, and the other responses.

◀ Refer back · The Cosmological Argument
Does the mere existence of the universe prove a first, necessary cause?

Last unit asked whether any argument PROVES God exists. Now the question flips: does suffering count as evidence AGAINST God?

Retrieve: Before the lesson, predict: if the cosmological argument worked, would the problem of evil still matter?
The big idea

Going from left to right, the problem claims LESS but is HARDER to escape. Kind one says God is impossible — but one reply can stop it. Kind two says only that God is unlikely — and no clever step answers it. In the essay, you decide where the real threat is.

Look ahead · The Free Will defence: Augustine and Plantinga ▶
Can human free will explain why a good God allows evil?

Next lesson: the Free Will defence. It says evil is the price of real choice. Test it against both kinds — and against natural evil.

Prime: Predict: can free will explain the Lisbon earthquake, or only the cruelty that people choose?
01

The lessons in this unit

4 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Summer 1 · weeks 28–31. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 28

Defining evil; the logical and evidential problems

Moral vs natural evil; Mackie's inconsistent triad and Plantinga's 4a amendment; Hume, Darwin and Rowe's evidential problem.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 29

The Free Will defence: Augustine and Plantinga

Augustine's privation and the Fall; Leibniz's best-possible-world theodicy; Flew and Mackie's objections; Plantinga's transworld depravity.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 30

The soul-making theodicy: Irenaeus and Hick

Irenaeus's two-stage creation; Hick's vale of soul-making; epistemic distance; Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov challenge.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 31

Other responses; evaluating the problem of evil

Mackie's atheism; Sartre; Midgley on wickedness and the banality of evil; process theology and dualism; the Afterlife defence; the Book of Job.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four views of the problem, side by side

One fact, two different arguments But the critics deny that the two can go together. A God like that, they say, would not let all this suffering happen. Believers say God and suffering CAN both be real. That is the argument of this unit. The problem comes in two kinds. Kind one: the logical problem — the beliefs CONTRADICT each other, so God is impossible (Mackie). Kind two: the evidential problem — so much pointless suffering makes God UNLIKELY (Rowe). Any answer has to deal with both.

Kind one

The logical problem: a contradiction

Three beliefs that cannot all be true: God is all-powerful, God is wholly good, and evil exists.
1Believers hold three beliefs: God is all-powerful, God is wholly good, and evil exists.
2Mackie adds: a good being gets rid of evil as far as it can, and an all-powerful being has no limits.
3Put together, these say there should be no evil. But there is. So the beliefs contradict each other.
4So the problem is not that God is unlikely, but that God is impossible. That is what makes it kind one.
Strength If it works, it settles the question for good. A contradiction cannot be true, so belief in God would be impossible — not just unlikely. And the believer cannot simply say that evil is not real.
Weakness It all rests on one step: 'a good being gets rid of evil as far as it can'. Plantinga says believers never agreed to that. A good God might allow evil for a greater good.
Kind two

The evidential problem: the evidence

No contradiction — but so much pointless suffering makes God unlikely.
1It asks which is more likely: an all-powerful, wholly good God (H1), or no such God (H2)?
2Some suffering seems to have no point: no one sees it, no one learns from it, nothing better comes of it.
3A good God who could stop pointless suffering would stop it. So pointless suffering is evidence against God.
4It does not prove there is no God. It makes 'no God' more likely. That is what makes it kind two.
Strength Plantinga's reply cannot touch it. Showing God is POSSIBLE does not show God is LIKELY. And the evidence is all around us — no clever extra step is needed, just the facts.
Weakness It rests on one claim: that the suffering really is pointless. Believers say a reason we cannot see is not the same as no reason. The rest of this unit tries to find that reason.
The shared ground

Defining evil

Evil is pain and suffering: moral evil comes from people's choices, natural evil from nature.
1Evil is pain and suffering, in the body or the mind. Augustine and Aquinas say it is a LACK of good, not a thing.
2Moral evil is caused by people's free choices: cruelty, violence, injustice. Believers call it 'sin'.
3Natural evil is caused by nature, with no one to blame: earthquakes, disease, animals hunting.
4The two blur: a famine can come from over-farming, and some say human cruelty is just one more part of nature.
Strength It gives every answer a clear test. Does it explain the earthquake as well as the cruelty? An answer that only explains one kind of evil has a gap.
Weakness The line is blurry. Is a famine caused by people or by nature? If the two kinds blend, it is harder to say which answer covers which suffering.
The challenge

Can the believer answer?

Give up a box, or keep all three and find a greater good: the afterlife, free will, or growing.
1Way one: give up a box. God is real but cannot stop evil (process theology). Most believers reject this.
2Way two: the afterlife. This life's pain is short; in the next life God rewards the good and punishes the cruel.
3Way three: free will. Evil is the price of real choice — better than a world of robots. Next lesson.
4Way four: soul-making. Suffering helps people grow into good people (Hick). The lesson after.
Strength There are four different answers, not one. A critic has to beat them all. And three of them keep the traditional God, with all three boxes ticked.
Weakness Each way out has a cost. Way one gives up the traditional God. Hell seems to make the problem worse. And free will and growth must explain natural evil too, not just cruelty.
04

Six examples of evil, sorted two ways

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the earthquake next to the deer. In both, God knows, can, and is good. Say what is DIFFERENT: why is one a contradiction, and the other only evidence?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the deer. Rowe says its pain has no point. Can you think of ANY good that could come from it? If you can, what happens to Rowe's argument?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Say Plantinga beats kind one. Is kind two enough on its own to make 'no God' the better belief? Or can believers say there is a reason we cannot see?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Go through the six cases. For each one say: moral or natural evil? Which kind of problem does it fit best? Say the rule you have found.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by 'natural evil'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. Pain and suffering caused independently of human action — e.g. earthquakes, disease, or predation in nature.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline Mackie's logical problem of evil.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. God is omnipotent
  2. God is wholly good
  3. Evil exists — Mackie argues these three cannot all be true together, given a good being eliminates evil as far as it can.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain Rowe's evidential argument from gratuitous evil.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. The burning fawn: agonising, unwitnessed, apparently pointless suffering — Rowe argues this makes 'there is no God' more reasonable than 'there is.'
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain the difference between the logical and evidential problems of evil.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Logical (Mackie): a priori, deductive, claims theism is CONTRADICTORY
  2. Evidential (Hume/Rowe): a posteriori, inductive, claims theism is merely UNLIKELY given the evidence.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is the problem of evil a decisive argument against the existence of God?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. Define moral/natural evil
  3. The logical problem and Plantinga's reply
  4. The evidential problem
  5. Judgement on which form is more damaging.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Every response this unit will meet targets the logical problem, the evidential problem, or both. Predict which response you expect to answer both forms most convincingly.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Metaphysics of God booklets runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Metaphysics of God booklets — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Metaphysics of God booklets is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan today's Q05 — thesis, moral/natural evil, the logical problem, the evidential problem, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is stating each kind of problem clearly, with the three boxes. AO2 is asking: does the reply answer THIS kind of problem — and why? Never just say 'so God does not exist' — show why.
09

Watch

Problem of evil (Crash Course) — watch for the logical and evidential problems — CrashCourse, 10:04

▶Problem of evil (Crash Course) · 10 min
Watch for: the logical and evidential problems — CrashCourse, 10:04↗▶Evil and suffering (AQA) · 27 min
Watch for: the problem of evil as an A-level unit — MsRutherfordRS, 27:22↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say the difference between moral evil and natural evil, with one example of each.
  2. Name the three beliefs in Mackie's logical problem.
  3. Say why the deer in the fire is evidence, not a contradiction.

Challenge

Argue: If you could use only ONE case in an essay, which would you pick — and why is it the strongest?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is stating each kind of problem clearly, with the three boxes. AO2 is asking: does the reply answer THIS kind of problem — and why? Never just say 'so God does not exist' — show why.