Question 1:

Does God Exist? What is Ivan's answer?

There are several possible positions with regard to the existence of God:

1. Theist:

'I believe that God exists.'
(This is the conviction of Alyosha who stakes out his whole life on that belief.)

2. Atheist:

'I believe that God does not exist.'
(Notice that atheism is also a kind of belief. Initially Ivan simply denied the existence of God but afterwards recanted his statement, which is more in keeping with agnosticism.)
Note: Ivan notes that those who do not believe in God but strive to accomplish "the transformation of all humanity on a new pattern" turn the religious idea of salvation inside out. In other words anarchism and socialism are just a reversed glove of Christian Kingdom of Heaven.

4. Deist:

6. Agnostic:

'I don't know whether God exists or not; this question could not be rationally decided.'
(This appears to be the true position of Ivan Karamazov.)

This is the reason why Ivan advises Alyosha in the following manner:
"Never think whether God exists or not!"
"I can't expect to understand about God." "All such questions are utterly inappropriate for a mind created with an idea of only three dimensions."

As a man I can reason only in the following way:
(1) If God exists and if He did create the world, then He created it according to the geometry of Euclid. This geometry includes both the assumption of three dimensions and the axiom about parallel lines that is constitutive for the visible world. How does Ivan know that God must have created the world according to the axioms of Euclidean geometry? Because his mind operates in that manner and it has been presumably created by God.
Note: This is a rationalist presumption against those who place God above commonsense logic and against those who propound a non-Euclidian geometry as the geometry of the universe. It appears that the world we see is set up in accordance with the geometry of Euclid and this constitution inevitably defines the framework for any discussion and understanding of the world.

(2) If God has created the world, He also created the human mind with the conception of only three dimensions of space. This means that for human mind two parallel lines can never meet since that intuition is essential for our intellect - any other reasoning is not valid on this planet.
Note: Of course, if we put two parallel lines on a sphere they will meet, but this could be explained by means of the same Euclidean geometry. What we cannot conceive and accept is that a non-Euclidian geometry holds for the world that we see. It can only apply to non-intuitive and non-worldly entities beyond our comprehension and rational abilities.

Ivan's Decision:

Since we cannot know or understand God we should simply accept or reject him on faith. Ivan decides to accept God precisely because we cannot determine whether he was created by man or the other way round, what is His nature and whether He exists. It makes sense to make a leap of faith in the absence of knowledge. ("I accept God simply.").

Since I cannot understand anything about God, and since you insist that God has created this world, I accept this assertion at least tentatively - 'since you say so', that is, for the sake of argument. "And so I accept God and am glad to."

But to "accept God" means much more than to accept that God exists and that He has created the world. This acceptance obviously entails a whole series of derived tenets.

I accept "His purpose". As a good artisan God had an idea while creating the world and He has set a certain purpose for the world.
Note: "I believe in the underlying order and the meaning of life." We do not see always the manifestations of that wisdom and purpose. But we need to presume that there is an invisible order underneath the visible disorder, that there is a hidden sense in what now seems to be devoid of any meaning.

"It's not that I do not accept God, it's the world erected by Him I don't and cannot accept."

"But I don't accept it, I won't accept it."

Ivan: "I could never understand how one can love one's neighbor."

Note: Ivan's statement is a reference to the biblical command: "Love your neighbor!" (Lev. 19:18) Ivan Karamazov takes it in its OT meaning as pertaining to those who are close to us as members of our family, social group or ethnicity. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth urges his disciples to extend the use of the expression 'neighbor' so that it applies universally to any fellow man who deserves love simply as human being (i.e. to every man).

1. Concrete individuals close to us are physically repugnant. One sees the ugliness of human race vividly present in those who are around us.

2. People we know do things that make love for them impossible. By their acts they demonstrate that humans do not deserve to be loved.

1. Particular acts of practical love and compassion are in fact acts of self-laceration, duty or penance.

2. One can love mankind "in the abstract, or even at a distance". But we can espouse abstract humanism only if we forget what real people do. Once we see them as they are all love is gone.

3. A Christ-like love for (all men) is a miracle impossible on earth.

Suffering is very real, but men by rule do not recognize it and even less empathize with it.

1) Another (man) can never really know how much I suffer, because he is another man and not I.

2) A man is rarely ready to admit another man's suffering because he is at best indifferent or (more often) does not like others.

There are basically three types of suffering:
(a) Accidental suffering (like hunger, decease or earthquake). Although it negates humanity in us it is mostly caused by misfortune or objective factors (natural evil).

(b) Deliberate suffering for an idea. It is sustained for the sake of a noble cause (heros and martyrs).

(c) Suffering of the innocent (children). Undeservedly inflicted by others (moral evil).

No. He is not a sociopath. He is not a misanthrope either. By collecting examples of senseless and undeserved suffering Ivan is making a case against humanity, the world and God. And even though, he is making a case against humanity, he contends, he is doing this "from love for humanity".

Note: This apparent contradiction is the consequence of a discrepancy between the existing type of humanity and the one Ivan wants to see in the world. The existing humanity exposes children to many forms of evil and suffering, the one Ivan has in mind would go by the principle that children must not be blamed for possible mistakes or failures of their parents and therefore never exposed to suffering.

The innocent must not suffer for another's sin, and especially such innocent as children!

The grown-up people have received a kind of compensation (knowledge and experience) for their suffering, or better to say, they are not any longer innocent, so let them pay the price.
Note: Ivan is willing to accept the doctrine of original sin so far as it applies to adults.

This is a reference to the Christian story as a whole but most specifically to the fact that suffering and evil exist despite divine origin of the world. The expression was used by Voltaire to denote both the fact that the innocent suffer and human readiness to accept this arrangement of the world under different excuses. Voltaire's answer to that position was in general: "Crash the infamy!" (That is to say, reject the idea of perfection and renounce any justification; the only meaningful attitude is to act within the confines of our own abilities - as Voltaire's Candide says: "Let us look to our welfare; go into the garden and do our own work.")
Note: Infamy is a wrong reputation (notoriety for bad reasons).

All too often we inflict pain or suffering in order to achieve our goals. No objection to this so long as it is a self-chosen and self-inflicted suffering. But we expose other people to suffering without their consent. Except for arbitrary acts of torture we regard these actions as a means for some ends that should redeem the inflicted pain. This type of conduct is an example of instrumental rationality or teleological reasoning ("necessary costs", "unavoidable consequences", "co-lateral damage"). It is a kind of necessity we accept for the sake of something higher, more important or universal. God, if He exists, allows us to reason and act in this way. But from a moral point of view it is infamous to take others as a means and to claim that ends justify the means.

Instrumentalization of the other is immoral as such. No matter whether we appeal to their dedication or simply manipulate them. Morally the most abominable abuse is certainly the sacrifice of other people without their consent. In that case we do not ask others to let themselves sacrificed. We just sacrifice them. Reagrdless how important and great that good might be for the sake of which men require the sacrifice of others or simply use their lives - it is morally unacceptable to proceed according to such a reasoning. It is especially problematic to sacrifice the innocent. When we do that we typically apply some of the following schemes of justifiucattion:

Some say suffering and pain are neccesary in order that humans could distinguish between good and evil and then freely choose between the two.
Maybe. But if the occurence of suffering is a condition for the knowledge of what is right and wrong (for otherwise man "could not have known good and evil"), then the answer is:

(a) This is a diabolical condition. Why do we need to know the difference between good and wrong "when it costs so much"? And just how much does it cost? Is the freedom of choice worth of this ever mounting cost or is it rather compromised by it? The cost-benefit analysis does not speak unambiguously in favor of such a knowledge. Would it be preferable not to have the freedom of evildoing at all? Why we were not given only good?

If one says that suffering is a necessary consequence of the original sin, because men "have eaten the apple", Ivan is ready to agree. Grown ups have inherited the sinfulness of their ancestors (the first couple). Their sufferings are thus (religiously speaking) deserved: Through the original sin the grown ups have clearly opted for freedom over the safety of paradise. Moreover they wanted to appropriate something that did not belong to them (knowledge = "stealing fire from heaven" and possibly immortality). So they have forfeited right to complain about the consequences (thus the devil can take them all).
Note: Ivan compounds the pagan myth about Prometheus (who actually gave fire to men) and the biblical myth about the first transgression (the discovery of free will was actually prompted by the prohibition pronounced by God).

Although the principles of Euclidean mind require that we find a rational explanation and moral justification for the general misery in the world as well as for the suffering of children in particular we do not get any satisfactory answer. But even if we had any explanation, no answer could be morally acceptable.
"I understand nothing, I don't want to understand anything now?"

Note: Striving to understand is psychologically motivated. We feel safer if we understand what is going on around us. Ivan wants to understand in order to be able to overcome the anxiety aroused by the troubling constitution of this world. But he cannot because it is absurd - it resists understanding both logically and morally.

If I believe in God I shall also believe in his promise that everything will be eventually redeemed. In the Book of Revelation it is said that "He will wipe every tear from their lives. There will be no more death, or mourning, or crying or pain for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev., 21, 4)

"I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage... that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all crimes of humanity, of all the blood they've shed."

Hereditary sin implies a responsibility that is transferred to descendants (if they are adults).
Ivan accepts this solidarity in retaliation (punishment) although it could be questioned as well.
Collective and lasting punishment for previous crimes of ancestors or fellow nationals makes sense for grown up people. Especially if they continue to enjoy the benefits of the transgression ("fire from heaven" = knowledge, freedom).

But children must not be included in the lineage of adult people's guilt and punishment (no "solidarity in retribution" for them). They are absolutely innocent.

Therefore the suffering of children cannot be inculculated in the final tally of the redeemed world. The opposite goes against human logic and moral sense.
Note: The argument that children are part of human race and therefore must share its fate is cynical; of course, they are, but those whose lives have been taken before they were able to reach adulthood are members of human race only virtually.

Instrumental evil in its various forms (suffering, sacrifice, pain) is acceptable under very specific conditions:

If somebody by his own will sacrifices himself, obtains the result or is given the opportunity to see it after death, this is a legitimate choice, assuming it does not involve anybody's non-consensual suffering.

But Ivan cannot accept "meaningful suffering" if it is inflicted upon others without their consent. Even if we could make the whole world happy by torturing to death a single peevish baby we are not permitted to do that. Ivan is not willing to live by the principle that the innocent must suffer for the sake of something else even if that happens to be something higher and more universal. He wants that undeserved suffering never occurs.

Note: These lines echoe Schiller's poem "Resignation" (1784) in which eternity admits that it cnnot restitute what we lose in a minute. Hope and faith are denounced as the only (illusionary) pay and alloted joy for the missed happiness.
Since I cannot get full restitution and justice, eternal harmony at the end does not help resolve the problem of denied happiness. What should I do?

A. Unintelligible Reality:

"I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is." I am not able to understand what else may be in the universe or in God's mind, but it is an undeniable fact that in this world innocent people suffer and that I do not see why.

Moralism:

Ivan Karamazov is sometimes portrayed as a "philosophical cynic", or, to use the words of Oscar Wilde, somebody who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. His reasoning in this matter shows, however, that his position is not that of cynicism = knowing how things are bad but not minding that. His true convictions are rather moralistic = not wanting to accept anything less than full justice. Consequently, he refuses any action that entails undeserved pain of the innocent, let alone the one which puts them in the situation of "collateral damage" in the pursuit of some good . This is the position of absolutely "clean hands", difficult but noble. Since this attitude is not suited for real social world (the rule of majority, utilitarian principles of decision making, teleology of historical progress) a withdrawal from the world appears to be an inevitable outcome.

(1) Personal:

Both avenged and forgiven sufferings do not meet Ivan's moral standards. Since it is not possible to undo once inflicted suffering and pay full justice there is no solution for the problem of innocent suffering. This outcome affects Ivan's personal existence.

"I must have justice or I will destroy myself." (Suicide?)
"And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible."
(By giving back the ticket Ivan rejects the show: salvation)
Note: This is a reference to the verses of Schiller: "Take, then, these joy-credentials back from me! Unopened I return them now to thee, Of happiness, alas, know naught!" Both Ivan and the poet have not used their ticket to happiness. However, there is an important difference: while the poet returns the ticket for his earthly happiness in order to redeem it in eternity, Ivan returns the ticket in order to avoid its redemption in eternal harmony.

Can God be justified in view of the existing evil? How can we reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God? How the following three propositions could be reconciled (all are theologically uncontestable):

(1) God is all powerful. (2) God is wholly good. (3) Evil exists.

Possible Answers:

Pietism:

6. We do not understand God's ways. Endowed with an Euclidean mind we cannot understand a superhuman reasoning that we must assume for God. Therefore we should refrain from calling discrepancies in the world and especially from judging God. A sub-variant of this answer says that God allows evil or what appears to be evil for His own purposes. However, this solution separates God from the world and humans from Him. Not to mention that it abdicates from using reason in evaluating the world.

It seems that the suffering of the innocent is the strongest and probably the most frequent reason for religious skepticism.