Some skeptics point to an insoluble trilemma as evidence against theism.
For how can all three be true at the same time?
Other than being possibly incomplete, as I have already pointed out, here are 5 reasons why the insoluble trilemma might not work.
1. If God can do anything why can’t he call evil good?
2. If God can do anything why can’t he simply be incoherent?
3. Why does limitless power need to be justified?
4. Does love always mean an elimination of all pain?
5. Does love always mean absolute freedom?
The challenge is actually quite silly. If God can do anything, then He surely can even allow evil and call it good. Why does He have to explain it? Surely, if omnipotence means all-powerful without even logical or rational limitation, He can allow evil to exist and not see any incoherence in it. And if God can do anything He pleases why can’t He simply be incoherent as well? That may be irrational to the skeptic, but does not limitless power also mean the power to be irrational without justification? Or take the second premise: Is eliminating pain always the loving thing to do? Is it a quid pro quo that if you love somebody you will make their life totally free from pain? Taking it a step further, does love always mean giving one the freedom to have or do whatever one wishes? Is it love to remove boundaries? Very quickly one can see that every premise as stated or implied by the critic makes assumptions that are actually irrational.
-Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale, Why Suffering?
