The problem of evil is a difficult objection for theists to address. Indeed, serious crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depth of suffering in the world. The fact also remains that these "evils" of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “best defense” attempts to explain some of the issues presented, but still has flaws. In the extract from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such: (a) If God were truly omnibenevolent, he would then desire to eliminate all evil; (b) If God were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil ;(c) Evil exists in the world. Therefore: (d) God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent. Both elements of the conclusion are harmful to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil. Evil opposes God's will and ultimately accumulates in the crucifixion of God's son, Jesus. One must therefore wonder how an all-powerful and loving God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. The world of a perfect God should be equally perfect. The world is not perfect, so it seems that God does not have to be loving or omnipotent. To reject the existence of evil is to immediately reject too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to even consider it, even though some philosophers have taken it into account. The traditional Christian answer to why God allowed Christ's death is in favor of absolving humanity's sin. However, this begs the question: As God almighty, why was it necessary... middle of paper... greed or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). ). This process can continue indefinitely. It also follows that God, not as benevolent as one might hope, prefers the maximization of good (2) over the minimization of evil (1). This is disturbing to the individual who may be the victim of a “greater good.” It seems that the problem of evil is substantial. While there are arguments that can challenge the assumptions of the problem, they sometimes require some convoluted definitions and do not address all the challenges that evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we are to perceive God's actions, but it does not fully defend against the problems of evil presented. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems that evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.