Can God exist alongside evil?

This is a very little snippet of my argument. There's a debate on this question down here on Wednesday. Comments gratefully received.

It is indisputable that there is much real evil in this world. We know this fact. But it is a matter of rational belief whether or not God exists. Therefore a belief about God, whether positive or negative, will be less certain than our knowledge of evil. Therefore the conclusion of this argument in either direction never has quite the same immediacy as the reality of evil. This is why it presents such an emotional obstacle to faith.

If God exists, then either God is unable to stop evil, or else He is unwilling. God cannot be unwilling to stop evil or else He is bad. Therefore God is unable to stop evil. Why? Etty Hillesum believed that God is in some way unable to create a world which is different from the one we find ourselves in. This is not to flatly deny God's providence. It is only to say that, for some very good reason, God must limit himself. Humans do this alot of the time, for example a black belt fighter who is forced to fight must limit the use of his skill. As humans can limit themselves, it would be very strange if a God couldn't. God must be at least capable of doing whatever he has allowed his creatures to do.

But what reason could a God have that would be good enough to allow for all the terrifying evil that exists? The reason must be something that is quite necessary. It wouldn't be good for a God to allow evil, unless there was no alternative that was desirable for Him to choose. But what could that be? It is possible that he could have made it an easier life within an easier world, with fewer diseases and less intense pain; but He didn't allow himself to. He could have created humans who always chose what was good out of pure love. But He couldn't bring himself to do it. Why not?

The simple argument of the Free Will Defence is that, as Chesterton says, 'a man has always been free to ruin himself if he chose', that life is like a blank canvas waiting for people to fill it in through their own choices. God could make all our choices for us, but only at the expense of changing what humanity is. But if God wants to have humanity just as it presently is, free and capable of evil, then he has to allow us to make our mistakes. As Etty Hillesum has put it, 'how good and beautiful it is to live in Your world, oh God, despite everything we human beings do to one another.’ It will be argued that God is ultimately responsible for giving us this ability to choose evil, and is therefore ultimately to blame. This is true. This is not like blaming the father for the sins of the son, because it really is God who has made us free, which is something no parent can do. The only defence of God in this situation is if we actually use that gift of freedom wisely. When we act well God is justified, when we are evil God stands condemned. In this sense God's fate is linked to ours, because the goodness in the world is completely dependent upon us.

But even if this defence can explain something of why God allows human evil, why might He allow such physical pain as exists, with all the indiscriminate suffering of our world that takes no account of the merit of individuals. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to this question. One point that can be made is that the necessity of the physical universe, it's terrible power and impersonal destructiveness, is in complete contrast with the nature of the moral freedom of the individual. The experience of physical necessity seems necessary for the revelation of our inner freedom over and above experience. Humans are unique in being normally free to choose even against what our genes are 'programmed' to make us do. Without the background of this physical universe, moral freedom does not seem to be possible. Certainly, if it was not possible to die, it would not be possible to murder. And if it is not possible to hurt another in any way, it is not possible meaningfully to choose to please them. Without a universe where good and bad are materially possible, even God cannot be actively good. Again Etty Hillesum proposes that we should accept the reality of life just as it is, and then do what we can about it. She says, 'we have to take everything that comes: the bad with the good, which does not mean we cannot devote our life to curing the bad. But we must begin with ourselves, every day anew.'

These points do not give a definitive conclusion, and it is doubtful whether an answer can be found. But how we choose to respond to reality reveals our attitude to the possibility of finding meaning to life. No-one normally wants loved ones to suffer or die, even if an after-life is believed in. But if it was a choice, as it is, between caring for them with all the future suffering that that implies, or to detach oneself from them anaesthetising oneself as much as possible from that pain, which one would you choose? The reality that is pain and love, or the anodyned illusion that leaves us comfortably numb? If the first is chosen, then love is seen as being in some way 'worth it'. If the second is chosen, what greater evil is there in the world than this indifference? We are left either to choose to accept evil as the cost of the goodness of the life we share with our loved ones, or to give up.

If we have chosen to stay alive, then we must view that the existence of love justifies our acceptance of the reality of evil. Indeed, to love is to become exposed, to open yourself up to trust another. It is at this point of openness that humanity is both most vulnerable and most uniquely human. It is in freely limiting our power to protect ourselves that enables another to get close enough to love us, but also thereby to hurt us. If God strictly controlled everything and allowed no evil, this God could only theoretically be said to be lovable, as no one would be free to love except Him. It is when evil is allowed that we receive the ability to love, but ironically it may seem that God is no longer worthy of our love. But this is not true. If evil is necessary for love, then God cannot destroy one without destroying the other. Indeed, as God is Himself free, and is not 'forced' to love us, then He must also be at least capable of a great deal of evil, even if it is believed in faith that he doesn't exercise this power in reality.

This is not a conclusive proof in favour of the existence of God. It is an argument in favour of the possibility of the existence of God given the reality of evil. The argument is hypothetical. It says: If one chooses to believe that love makes life worth while, then it is not unreasonable to believe in a being who is ultimately responsible for creating that worthwhile life, and who is powerful and good, but who freely limits himself in allowing evil to exist because he loves us just as we are, free and capable of compassionate love.