My Evil Thoughts

Free Will?
Considering the world as it is, it seems to me that:

If there is no free will - evil is inevitable.

And.

If there is free will - evil is inevitable.

Again, consider the world as it is:

If there is no free will - evil is inevitable because evil is committed by those who cannot choose to do otherwise.

And.

If there is free will - evil is inevitable because evil is committed by those who choose to commit it.

Therefore, consider the world as it is, evil is inevitable.

Traveling Down Two Roads
Now, let us go down two roads: the atheistic (here, absolute materialism) and the theistic (here, Judeo-Christian).

Both roads head directly towards the mountain of evil, "the problem of evil," and attempt to climb its precipice.

Atheism
It is difficult to make a general statement about "the atheist answer to evil" since individual atheists have various views on this topic (although they seem to agree that evil equal no God).

Atheists could very well deal with the "problem of evil" by simply stating "What evil?"-the end.

"Evil" may be a sensation which we do not particularly enjoy, it may be that which causes outrage in us, it may be a personal preference for or against certain actions.
Our sense of, or definition of, "evil" may have evolved (a term generally preferred by atheists although "evolving" would be more appropriate), a sense of, or awareness of, evil may have been encoded into our genes, it may be "hard-wired" into us, it may be a response against that which threatened our survival, etc.

Without an establisher and administrator of morality evil is subjective: Nazis were doing the greater good in their view and we condemn them according to another view. The alternate view fought against the Nazis and won. The strong (the fittest) in this case, won (survived) in the struggle for life against the weak.

Atheists generally claim that morality arose from our far removed ancestor's need to get along in ever expanding groups from band of primates, to tribes, villages, cities, states, countries, continents, and the globe (the global village).

They also generally claim that morality is that upon which the group agrees. Yet, we end up with various segments of the global village disagreeing when one group's morals contradict another group's and conflict ensues. Thus, we are ultimately back to nature's basis of morality: survival of the fittest, the survival of the strongest, giving to get, etc.

Let us make one point clear: atheists can make moral claims. They can claim that certain actions are, or are not, moral. Yet, what they are doing is making epistemic statements with no ontological support. That is to say, atheists can make statements about morality. Yet, they ultimately present authoritative dogmatic assertions but once you ask them "Why?" they merely offer another authoritative dogmatic assertion followed by another and another in either an infinite regress of authoritative dogmatic assertions or a finite regress which ends with "Because I say so," or "Because the government says so," or "Because my army can beat up your army and we say so."

For example, an atheist could state that genocide is immoral but the fact that those who committed the genocide do not consider it immoral proves that, on absolute materialism, the only thing that the atheist can do is make unfounded assertions. The genocidal consider it moral and could provide various arguments such as the riding of the weak, restoring balance between population and goods, bettering circumstances for the majority, etc.

But the issue at hand is the problem of evil and what is done about it. Let us assume that atheism does define evil epistemically and claims that this is our only option.

Evil still exists and choosing to reject God's very existence does not make evil go away.

The only justice against evil which atheism offers is premised upon the chance that the evildoer gets caught and is incarcerated or put to death. This also presumes that the governmental power agrees that the acts of the evildoer were, in fact, evil.

Atheism guarantees that evil has no greater purpose, it exists without meaning, it has no ability to be redeemed, it is for nothing but misery. Yet, this is not quite accurate since atheism makes evil even worse in that evil is not really for nothing since the evildoer very much enjoys committing evil and will either have no justice imposed upon them or will end up incarcerated (being fed and clothed while receiving medical care and having access to various entertainment devices).

On an absolutely materialistic view of evil upon which justice is not ultimately imposed, evil is a moral good from the evildoer's point of view-it brings joy, purpose and meaning to their lives.

Some atheists argue that to say that atheism does nothing about evil is a misstatement due to the fact that atheism is merely an idea and ideas cannot, do not, and are not meant to do anything (except, perhaps, to inspire). Yet, this is just the point, atheist are dealing with impotent ethereal ideas while Judeo-Christianity is dealing with a potent being.

The problem of evil is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.

Judeo-Christian
The Judeo-Christian view must not only deal with the world as it is but explain why it is as it is, or why and how it came to be this way. The atheist answer to this is obviously the same as their ultimate answer to anything, "It just is." Yet, premised upon the concept of a loving God, Judeo-Christianity must answer why evil exists (find discussion of confused definitions of good, evil, love and hatred here and here).

Unlike "absolutely monotheistic" gods such as Allah or polytheistic/pantheon-like gods the nature of the Judeo-Christian God is relational. The Judeo-Christian God has enjoyed eternal relationships amongst the triune Godhead. This means a relationship which is eternal, with coeternal beings, with other personal beings, who are one God. In this way, God's nature is not lacking in relationship, it knows interpersonal relationship and yet, it knows relationships with likewise beings in perfect unity (I explored the idea of Trinitarian monotheism, absolute monotheism, pantheons, etc. in my essay Does Atheism Have Moral Grounding?). Thus, morality is within God's eternal nature.

God knows that love requires choice and choice requires free-will. Both angels and humans have free-will to either love God or reject God. With free-will as a necessity, evil is inevitable. Thus, from the moment of creation evil was an option necessitated by free-will. Yet, God did not create evil beings. God created a "good" creation. God declares all aspects of creation "good" until God declared that Adam's lack of relation to a likewise being was "not good" at which time God created Eve. From a premise of a free-will good creation some angels and human beings chose evil. What is a relational God to do now? I say "relational" in context of this essay but we could also state: righteousness, perfect, moral, etc.

Let us review and conclude:

Love requires choice.

Choice requires free-will.

Free-will makes evil inevitable.

Evil requires justice.

Justice requires reciprocity of some sort.

The relational God's response to the requirement of justice is grace.

Grace further requires an action of free-will in choosing to accept or reject grace.

Since love requires choice, God respects choice and thus, respects the choice to ignore grace and accept the reciprocity.

Thus, the way that God deals with evil is to place an awareness of morality within and without us, or inwardly and outwardly, or by special revelation and natural revelation. In this way, God does not leave any segment of humanity without some sort of access to His moral code. God created us in His image with moral, relational characteristics.

Ultimately, God will solve the problem of evil by parsing those who chose to accept grace and those who chose to reject it. Those who accepted it do thereby choose a relationship with God and those who rejected it choose to not relate to Him. Thus, two infinite abodes have been established known as heaven (or the New Jerusalem) and hell. Heaven is a place in which to enjoy an infinite relationship with God and other grace choosers while hell is a place in which grace rejecters can finally have what they wanted: to do away with God, have nothing to do with Him and to wallow in their chosen sin. For God to take those who rejected Him and drag them into His presence for all of eternity in heaven would be a violation of free-will, it would be unjust and it would make heaven into hell (for them). I have written on various issues related to the topic of hell in the following essays: On Hell and Why Would Your Lord Send You to Hell?

When it comes to evil, atheists cannot seem to make up their minds as to whether our life-spans are too short or two long. They argue that we suffer evil for the long decades of our lives and the long history of humanity. They complain that God is not doing anything about evil.
You tell them that God will ultimately solve the problem of evil. They complain that God is taking too long and ask why He does nothing now. Of course, He has always been doing something about it but we are speaking in eventualities.
You reiterate that God will ultimately solve the problem by parsing choice makers. Thus, first they complain that God is not doing anything about evil and then they complain about what God is, ultimately, going to do about evil.

Just after complaining that God is taking too long and we suffer for far too long they then complain that eternal hell is unjust because our lives are a mere twinkling of an eye and the history of humanity a mere cosmic nanosecond. I find that complaints about hell are generally due to erroneous theological and atheistic concepts of hell. Thus, whether our life-spans are too short or two long, atheists find occasion to besmirch God.

But what if God would "do something" about evil right now? God may begin by doing away with the atheist posing the argument, since they have rejected God.

Another capability that God has which mere ideas such as atheism's amorality do not is that God can redeem evil, He can bring good from evil and do so in an ultimate and eternal way, as Joseph said to his very brother who had betrayed him, "_you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good_" (Genesis 50:20).

Finally, based on the Judeo-Christian view we have an extrinsic, objective, absolute basis for morality. We have a relational God who offered free-will and we have a God who will ultimately respect the choice to accept or reject Him.