I think that the PoE derives from the PoG (problem of God) which derives from theism being that the claim is "we exist within a created thing".
The PoG is only problematic re the definition "the existence of a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God" which itself is problematic because what do humans understand of perfection, good, all powerful and all knowing? This is why there arises the idea that "there is no single answer"...
The Problem of Evil is a derivative problem
It only arises once a certain definition of God is assumed. If God is defined as a
perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing being, then evil becomes a paradox. But if the concept of God is adjusted (say, not omnipotent, or “good” in a way beyond human categories), the paradox shifts or dissolves. That’s why the real crux is the
Problem of God — what do we even mean when we use the word “God”?
Human limits in defining God
“Perfectly good,” “all-powerful,” and “all-knowing” are human abstractions. We have no experiential grasp of absolute perfection, or what it means to know
all. So humans project their categories onto “God,” and then argue about contradictions inside their own projection. The "problem of evil" may reflect more about the limits of human language and imagination than about God.
Why does God allow evil?
- Free will defense: Evil exists because free beings can choose wrongly.
- Soul-making defense: Hardship is necessary for growth and virtue.
- Greater good defense: Some evils are stepping stones toward outcomes we can’t yet see.
- Non-dual view: “Evil” is a relative label within human moral perception, not an absolute category.
Each answer depends on what you already think God is. If God is “the ground of being” rather than a cosmic parent, the question morphs entirely.
Why do good people suffer?
This question assumes that “good” behavior should guarantee protection. That’s transactional justice, not necessarily divine justice. Ancient traditions (Job, Ecclesiastes, Buddhism) often suggest that suffering is built into existence itself, not distributed by moral scorekeeping.
Why would God save Trump but not others?
This one exposes the raw arbitrariness of theism-in-action. If someone says, “God saved Trump,” they’re implying selective divine intervention — God acts in one case and withholds in another. Theologically, that raises even sharper problems than the original PoE: favoritism, injustice, or a God whose ways are opaque to the point of uselessness. The believer is forced either to:
- admit God’s choices look arbitrary,
- retreat into “mystery,” or
- redefine what “saved” actually means (maybe symbolic, not literal).
In short: the PoE is less about “evil” and more about the assumptions we build into “God.” The deeper debate is whether our definitions make sense, or whether they need to be restructured before the problem can even be identified as an actual problem..
