That's a tough one, isn't it? That age-old problem has plagued believers in God for quite some time, and it is a question that those who believe in an all-powerful, all-loving God have to answer. As my medieval philosophy professor pointed out while explaining this syllogism, "Any idiot could have come up with a better universe than one where evil exists."
Several possible solutions to the logical conundrum above have been offered. The major ones are as follows:
Without evil, there can be no good. This is very satisfying to those of us who have had some study of physics, what with positive and negative charges and north and south magnetic poles only having meaning through the existence of the other.
God bends evil such that its works are turned to good. None other than the great theologian St. Thomas Aquinas provided this explanation, though it is generally out of favor in modern thought. There are arguments for this explanation, but I will not provide them for the simple fact that they will not please anybody.
God is mysterious, and we should not question his works. In other words, he allows evil to exist for reasons that are beyond human comprehension. This is a very satisfying explanation in that it allows us to ignore the problem altogether.
There is another way to attack the aforementioned problem, that being the simple fact that love is an emotion and therefore is free of logic. We are attempting to use logic to examine something that does not conform to logic, so therefore, logic is not applicable in this case. While this sidesteps the issue neatly, I believe that that answer skates close to counter-argument number 3. Besides which, it is monumentally unsatisfying, as it does not attack the essential logic behind the argument against the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God. While I will not delve completely into the pros and cons of each counter-argument, the simple fact is that none of them deal directly with the logic of the problem. Instead, each tiptoes around the fringe and leaves the central argument intact. If one desires to attack logic, one must use logic, and all the essential limitations therein. The above arguments do not do so. However, we can deal with the problem of God and evil in a way that does confront the argument directly. In order to do so, we must take the above argument and apply it to ourselves. For, if we do, some very interesting conclusions appear.
If we apply the argument against evil to parents, we see that they can eliminate evil from their children's universe. Probably the best way of doing so would be to leave children in a state of complete sensory deprivation. If nothing is ever seen, heard, smelled, etc., no evil can ever enter their lives. Admittedly, this is a bit difficult and expensive to do. So, let's simplify things and just throw the kids into a nice padded cell. Then we can safely assume that evil is shut out their lives. The only necessary allowances would be for the children's basic physical needs, such as food. So, when a parent would need to change diapers or drop off a meal, Mom or Dad could just tranquilize the child with a dart gun, leaving evil entirely out of the equation.
Parents, in general, do not do this. Therefore, by the above theorem, parents do not love their children. However, the problem with the method described above is that we would consider it to be evil. In fact, it has been known to happen that feral children have been found in houses, handcuffed to radiators and such, and we tend to judge their parents harshly. Imprisoning a person in such a way goes contrary to everything we consider the act of someone who loves somebody. Therefore, if we consider it bad for a parent to lock up a child in such a way, we can consider it bad for God to do the same thing to someone or something He loves.
Furthermore, if we agree that permanent seclusion is not the correct thing for a parent to do, we must conclude that the only parents who love their children are the parents who never have them, because these children will never need to confront evil due to their physical nonbeing. Though this also satisfies the logical construct as stated, this is also completely counterintuitive.
Clearly, the problem of evil is not to be found in an inadequate supply of restraints and/or birth control. While this is interesting, it does not address the argument previously mentioned, nor the fact that evil exists in the first place.
The very simple solution to this is found in the fact that God is all-loving. Because, if God is all-loving, then God must, by definition, love evil too. In fact, to use an example from a major world religion, I seem to remember a Gentleman somewhere in the New Testament saying something along the lines of, "Love thine enemy as thyself," though His name escapes me for the moment. And I think it is safe to assume that God does not lay down rules that He, Himself, does not follow. So, unless we wish to use the parenting techniques explained above, we must also conclude that God allows the existence and action of evil for the same reasons he allows the existence and action of humans.
There is a problem with this solution, however. That being, "How do you define 'all-loving'?" To which I respond that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way you define All-Loving. However, it has everything to do with the way God would define 'all-loving'.
Let us use a very broad definition and say that God loves everything consisting of physical matter -- such as rocks, trees, and marmosets -- spiritual matter -- such as angels are generally supposed to consist of -- or both -- such as the body/soul combination described in Cartesian dualism. Now then, have we covered everything? No. It leaves out things that exist conceptually. This includes things such as unicorns, logic, careers and, of course, evil.
Just like unicorns, we do not find evil in some tangible form frolicking in meadows or thoughtfully chewing grass. However, if we conclude that unicorns do not exist by dint of non-presence in either physical or spiritual form, we can also conclude that evil does not exist and, therefore, the three-pronged argument against the argument of God is rendered moot. But, as we observe unicorns through a variety of pewter figurines, we observe evil through events and actions that are evil.
Indeed, logic works along the same lines. Much like evil, we can recognize logic but we cannot perceive it in sensory form. One can write down all the rules of logic, but the ink and paper are not, themselves, logic. Logic acts upon ideas, but these ideas do not consist of either physical or spiritual matter. Should we then not count logic as being part of the set known as "all"? If it is not part of "all", then it is part of "nothing" and therefore does not exist, leaving my aforementioned college professor with a lot of explaining to do.
Furthermore, one cannot point to one's career saying, "There it is, leaning against that wall." It is not limited to a location, as one can have the same career in many different places. A career exists in one's workaday actions. With this established, we must ask if one can either like or dislike one's career? People carry emotions about intangible objects such as careers. I even know people who, strange as it is to me, love their careers. Is it such a stretch to imagine God possessing emotions toward objects that are, likewise, conceptual?
If it continues to fall out of the grasp that God loving evil is possible, then we must consider that good is merely the converse of evil. If God cannot love evil, then neither can he love good, as they are essentially the same conceptual matter. They merely oppose each other. If there is an all-powerful, all-loving God, then can we say that He does not love good? They consist of exactly the same conceptual matter, except for the fact that they oppose one another. Thus, if one wishes to say that an All-Powerful, All-Loving God does not love evil, one must show also that this same God does not love good.
We neither imprison nor prevent the things we love. So, if there is an All-Powerful, All-Loving God, He does not prevent evil because, to do so would be akin to imprisoning it. Evil is as free to be and act as we are because he loves it, despite its faults. And for God's love to encompass even something as despicable as evil would have to be the most profoundly loving act of an All-Loving God!
It seems like the essay should end there, doesn't it? I agree, it probably should. Unfortunately, there are other issues we must deal with. Not the least of which is the simple fact that this is the most dangerous philosophy in the history of man.
I have called this the most dangerous philosophy in the history of man. You may think this is mere bragging, but I assure you: it is. The repercussions of this philosophy are scarier than you can ever imagine.
When reading this, you must remember Hitler. Hitler was a man who was very familiar with the philosophy of his time. Especially Nietzsche and his idea of the superman. Hitler used the ideas of Nietzsche's superman, combined them with Darwin's theory of evolution and created an idea of the German as the superman that must evolutionize all the other races on earth and destroy them. Sure, there was the emotional leap in which the asshole decided that the German was the superman -- which was not logical -- but the simple fact is that he did it. And hell followed with him. Evil is a funny thing.
When reading the above philosophication, it is plainly clear to see that some asshole, somewhere, will think to himself, "If God loves evil, then he must approve of evil. Therefore I will be evil so that God approves of me." Anybody who decides this is a dumbass
The question, of course, is whether God then approves of evil. To return to the parent example, since when does someone necessarily approve of all the actions of that which one loves? Mere disapproval does not imply a lack of love. Neither does anger. How many parents do you know feel the necessity of punishing children because they love them? Are these parents angry at their misbehaving children? Oh, I'd say so. Do they still love their children? Do you know any parents who would say that they don't?
This answer may anger you. It may confuse you. It may frighten you. However, one thing it certainly does not do is prove that God exists. It merely shows a logical hole in the argument against the existence of an All-Powerful, All-Loving God.