Philosophers have looked for ways to explain God's existence for centuries.  One such
argment that the believer must justify in order to maintain the possibility of God's existence is the 
problem of evil.  In his essay, "The Problem of Evil," by Richard Swinburne, the author attempts to
explain how evil can exist in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent 
Being, namely God.  Swinburne uses to free-will defense and says that God gave us a choice
between doing good and doing evil.  If someone chooses to do good over evil, then that Good is 
greater than if one had no choice at all but to do good.  This is a weak argument and in order to
clarify those weaknesses one can look at Steven M. Cahn's essay entitled "Cacodaemony."  This
essay parallels Swineburne's, but states that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon
created the world.  By looking at how weak the argument for cacodaemony is, one can see how
unlikely it is that the Demon exists and then can see that the existence of God is just as unlikely.
     In "The Problem of Evil", Swinburne says that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent 
Being created the world.  If this were true, how can evil exist in this world?  If God consciously
knew He was creating a world in which there is evil, then He would not be omnibenevolent.  If
God did not know He was creating a world in which evil exists, then He would not be omniscient.  
If God is omnipotent then He would be able to stop any evil from occurring.  Either way, God
would not be what Christianity makes him out to be.  Swinburne argues that the theodicist, one
who believes that it is not wrong for God to create a world in which there is evil, can logically
explain the existence of evil in the world.
     The main argument that the theodicist uses is the free-will defense, which claims that God
gave humans the freedom to choose between doing acts of good and acts of evil.  The theodicist
argues that the good person could do is greater if it is chosen instead of doing evil.  It is better to
choose to walk an elderly person across the road instead of deciding to push the elderly person in
front of an oncoming car.  The theodicist believes that it is better for a person to have that choice,
though nearly everyone would naturally choose to help the person across the street, than to have
no choice at all and be forced to help that person.  Swinburne writes that giving people a moral 
responsibility to do the right thing is good.  "But if He did so by imposing a full character on a 
humanly free creature, this would be giving him a character which he had not in any way chosen
or adopted for himself" (9).  Swinburne believes that the freedom to choose and develop ones own 
character is a very important thing and each person deserves to have the ability to choose between
Good and evil.
     This, however, does not justify the amount of pain and suffering in the world.  If someone
were to consciously choose to do an evil act over a good one, the suffering caused to the innocent
people involved would not be right.  There are some people with mental disorders or those born
with retardation that do not have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or who
sometimes suffer from lack of proper judgement.  These people cannot make a choice between
good and evil, so sometimes they do evil acts, and sometimes they do good ones.  Would it not be
better for these people not to have the choice, a choice that they may not be fit to make?  For
example, a man who is schizophrenic may hear voices that tell him to do something that he knows
is morally wrong, such as kill somebody.  Would it not be better for God to intervene and make
this person's judgement better?  It most certainly would be better for God to intervene and give this
person a proper sense of right and wrong and the ability to do the right thing.  It would have been
a better world if God had created Hitler so that he would not feel the need to order the massacre of
millions of Jews.  Swinburne, however, thinks that it is better for these people to have a choice to
do wrong or to do right.
     Swinburne argues that, although evils are bad, their existence is necessary for the existence
of some types of goods.  Certain evils that occur, such as the suffering of others, cause us to be 
compassionate, courageous, self-sacrificing, etc.  Swinburne says that these are goods that exist 
because of the existence of evil.  "Evils give men an opportunity to perform the acts which show
men at their best" (10).  Someone who sees a woman getting raped may show courage and
compassion by trying to stop the rapist.  It is illogical, however, to say, that it is a good thing that
woman was getting raped so that the kindhearted citizen could intervene.  This woman, would still
suffer from the mentl tortures of being violated.  Even though it was a courageous thing that the 
person stopped the rape, the woman would be better off if the rape had not even happened at all.
Women as a whole would feel a lot safer if rape did not exist.  Yet it is an evil, and it does exist,
and the compassion ane may feel towards a victim of this evil does not make the victim better off 
than if there never existed such a thing as rape.
     If no one were in pain, then it is true that goods such as compassion would not exist.  How
can it be justified, however, that it is good that some suffer so that others can exhibit good traits?
Those people can try and bring others who are in pain happiness and relief, but many others will
still experience pain both physical and mental.  The woman who is getting raped will still feel
mental pain after the good person stopped the rapist.  It is illogical to say that it is good for evil to 
exist so that others will exhibit good traits.  It is good that people come together and try to improve
and perfect this world, but it is not good that people have to suffer in order for others to try and 
improve the world.
     Swinburne also mentions the other types of evils that are not caused by humans, such as
natural disasters.  The theodicist argues that "God ties the goodness of man to the well-being of the 
world and that afailure of one leads to a failure of the other" (12).  Earthquakes and volcanoes are
a way to punish humanity for misbehaving.  This does not explain why earthquakes happen, and
why so many die as a result of them.  The west coast cannot be at fault for the earthquaks that
plague them constantly.  Many law-abiding, good citizens died in the Earthquakes that rocked San
Francisco and Los Angeles a few years ago.  God would not have allowed all those innocent 
people to die.  Nor can the thousands of people who lost their homes because of Hurricane
Andrew be blamed.  All one needs to do is to take a class about Geology or Meteorology to know
why these and other natural disasters happen.  It would be illogical for God, if He is
omnibenevolent, to make many good people suffer because of natural disasters.  Earthquakes and
volcanoes have existed on this planet long before humans were around.  The world was plagued
with earthquakes and volcanoes during and before the time of the dinosaurs, hundreds of millions
of years before humans evolved and Christianity came about.  The theodicist cannot explain why
God would allow so much pain to be caused to humans by natural disasters.  This presents
a serious hole in the compatibility of God with evil in this world.
     Swinburne also discusses the different types of goods that exist in the world.  These goods 
are instrumental and intrinsic.  An intrinsic good is something that is good by itself, such as love or
happiness.  An instrumental good is something that may not be good by itself, but it can be used to
achieve a greater good.  An example of an instrumental good would be modern medicine.  The 
existence of the Black Plague in medieval Europe caused suffering and death to millions.  It also
resulted in the bettering of living conditions.  The death of one third of the population of Europe
cannot be justified by the compassion felt by those that lived towards those that die.  Another
example of an instrumental good is penicillin.  It was discovered and helped to cure polio and
saved many lives.  The suffering of the many that contracted, suffered and died from this disease
cannot be justified by the few that fought to conquer this disease.  It is not a good thing that Polio
existed.
     Even if the theodicist still believes that the existence of God and the existence of evil are
compatible, by looking at Steven M. Cahn's essay "Cacodaemony," one will see that they are not.
In his essay, Cahn parallels Swinburne's situation of the problem of evil with the problem of
goodness.  Cahn states that it is equally likely that if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent
Being created the world, then an omniscient omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon could have
done the same.  The problem that arises in Cahn's essay is:  how could a world containing
goodness have been created by this all-powerful Demon?  It exactly parallels the problem in 
Swinburne's essay, how could evil exist in a world created by God?
     Cahn attacks this problem by using the same argument that Swinburne uses, the free-will
defense.  Cahn also creates two types of good, just as Swinburne categorized two types of evil.
Cahn calls these goods moral goods, those humans do for each other, and physical goods, those
found in the human environment.  Cahn writes that the Demon could have created a world in
which humans do not have the ability to do good, but this Demon has.  Cahn writes that the
Demon has given humans free-will to choose to do evil or good.  If one chooses evil over good,
then that evil is greater than if one had no choice at all but to do evil.  "The Demon thus had to
provide human beings with freedom, so that they might perform their bad actions volunarily, thus
maximizing evil"(23).  Cahn writes that the world wouldnot be as evil as it could be if the Demon 
made it so that everyone was just evil.
     These arguments are not very convincing.  Too many people choose good over evil for 
this to be the worst of all possible worlds, which is what it should be if an omniscient, omnipotent, 
omnimalevolent Demon created it.  This world would be more evil if the Demon made us 
inherently evil and goodness did not even exist.  If we were all made with the same characteristics
as the Demon then we would be more evil than if we had to choose to come up with those evil
traits on our own.  This world would be a worse place if everyone just fought and hated each
other, just like this world would be a better place if everyone was peaceful and happy.  This
Demon could not exist because there is too much good in the world, and that good does not get an
adequate explanation.  Since the arguments for Cacodaemony is disproved, so is the one for the
theodicist, since these two arguments are equally likely and equally weak.
     By looking at Cahn's "Cacodaemony," one can see how improbably it is that an omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnimalevolent Demon created the world.  Cahn's argument, however, exactly
parallels Swinburne's in "The Problem of Evil."  Both use the free-will defense to attempt to
explain how evil or goodness could exist in a world created by God or a Demon.  Both arguments
have the same strength, as Cahn notes, and both are very weak arguments.  If it seems unlikely
that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnimalevolent Demon created the world, then it is just as
unlikely that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being created the world.  It is likely that
neither God nor the Demon exists, and the problem of evil and the problem of goodness wind up
supporting the position of the atheist.