I had a Christian lady send me a question by email about the Problem of Evil (PoE)—pertaining to her specific case, having been confronted by an atheist on the issue. Evidently this atheist told her that the PoE "proves that the God of the Bible doesn't exist." I told her I can guarantee that the argument he produces to support that claim will be invalid in at least one way, possibly more. She later shared with me what his argument was, which quite forcefully stated, "Since suffering exists and there is no reason for it, that defeats the belief that an omnibenevolent God exists"—and furthermore, that "no theologian has ever offered a successful solution to the PoE."
Does his argument shoot itself in the foot, as I had guaranteed it would? Absolutely.
Where his PoE invalidates itself is at the premise "there is no reason for [suffering]." By having assumed in advance that gratuitous suffering exists, his argument excludes the God of Christianity from the criticism. The argument has nothing to say about our God. How so? Quite simply: the God of Christianity is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; consequently, given those attributes in concert, there can be no such thing as gratuitous suffering. They are mutually exclusive, in the same way that an Irresistible Force precludes an Immovable Object.
If he persists in presupposing the existence of gratuitous suffering in an argument that is supposed to address the God of Christianity, then he is guilty of committing the fallacy of Begging the Question. How so? Because, like I said, gratuitous suffering and those attributes of God are mutually exclusive; i.e., by assuming in advance that gratuitous suffering exists, his argument has assumed that God as defined by Christianity does not exist, and then it concludes that he does not exist. The only way he can escape this dilemma is by proving that gratuitous suffering exists, instead of simply assuming it does. His assuming its existence is what's invalidating his argument.
And the absence of a coherent theodicy does not salvage his argument. "You are not required to provide a solution for the PoE," I told her, so that aspect of his contention is irrelevant. And I went on to say:
It almost seems like he is saying, "My PoE argument is true if you can't prove it false," which is the fallacious irrelevancy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'. His PoE argument stands or falls under its own merits, not on your ability to provide a theodicy (which is what solutions to the PoE are called). PoE arguments and theodicies are two different things.
And he is wrong, of course. Many Christian philosophers have produced successful theodicies (James Moreland, Greg Bahnsen, Alvin Plantinga, John Frame, etc.). Until he can cite every theodicy ever developed and unequivocally refute them all, his statement is nothing more than wishful thinking: (a) if there are any theodicies he has failed to unequivocally refute, his statement cannot be true; (b) if there are any theodicies he has no knowledge of, his statement cannot be true.
