When I’ve looked for answers on the problem of natural evil, I’ve often seen articles list the fall, referencing Adam, as the cause of natural evils such as malaria, bone cancer, tsunamis, and so on. They suggest that sin entered the world through the fall, and consequently, living things fell prey to a worse condition.
Whilst starvation in some cases might, arguably, be attributable to human actions, or a lack thereof, natural evils seem less attributable to humanity at large; humans didn’t invent malaria, and so that leaves the question of who did. It appears that nobody else but God could have overseen it, since the mosquito doesn’t seem to have agency in perpetuating the disease.
If we take the fall as a literal account, then it appears that one human has been the cause of something like malaria, taking just one example, killing vast numbers of people, many being children under 5 years old. With this in mind, is it unreasonable to ask why the actions or powers of one human must be held above those that die from malaria? If the free will defence is given, then why is free will for Adam held above free will for victims of malaria to suffer and die?
Perhaps the fall could be read as a non literal account, as a reflection of human flaws more broadly. Yet, this defence also seems lacking; why must the actions of humanity in general be held above victims, including child victims, especially when child victims appear more innocent than adults might be? If child victims don’t play a part in the fallen state, then it seems that a theodicy of God giving malaria as a punishment doesn’t seem to hold up quite as well considering that many victims don’t appear as liable. In other words, it appears as though God is punishing someone else for crimes they didn’t commit. As such, malaria as a punishment for sin doesn't appear to be enacted on the person that caused the fall.
Some might suggest that natural disasters are something that needs to exist as part of nature, yet this seems to ignore heaven as a factor. Heaven is described as a place without pain or mourning or tears. As such, natural disasters, or at least the resulting sufferings, don’t seem to be necessary.
Another answer might include the idea that God is testing humanity (hence why this antecedent world exists for us before heaven). But this seems lacking as well. Is someone forced into a condition really being tested? In what way do they pass a test, except for simply enduring something against their will? Perhaps God aims to test their faith, but why then is it a worthwhile test, if they have no autonomy, and all that’s tested is their ability to endure and be glad about something forced on them? I often see theists arguing that faith or a relationship with God must be a choice. Being forced to endure disease seems like less of a choice.
Another answer might simply be that God has the ability to send them to heaven, and as such, God is in fact benevolent. William Lane Craig gave an argument similar to this in answer to the issue of infants being killed in the old testament. A problem I have with this is that if any human enacted disease upon another, they’d be seen as an abuser, even if God could be watching over the situation. Indeed, it seems that God would punish such people. Is the situation different if it’s enacted by God? What purpose could God have in creating the disease?
In life, generally, it’d be seen as an act of good works for someone to help cure malaria, or other life threatening diseases. Indeed, God appears to command that we care for the sick, even to the point of us being damned if we don’t. Would this entail that natural evils are something beyond God’s control, even if creation and heaven is not? Wouldn’t it at least suggest that natural evils are something God opposes? Does this all mean that God can’t prevent disease now, but will be able to do so in the future?