After reading an article by Moti Mizrahi called “The Problem of Natural Inequality: A New Problem of Evil,” I think it offers a newcomer to the problem of evil which worth a post here.
The argument is summarized as follows:
1. If pointless and unjustified evils exist, then it’s unlikely that God exists.
2. Unequal distribution of natural endowments, namely, natural inequality, exists.
3. Such natural inequality is pointless and unjustified.
a. Free will defense and soul-making defense both cannot adequately justify such natural inequality.
b. Only these two defenses are available.
c. If no available defenses can adequately justify such natural inequality, then such natural inequality is pointless and unjustified.
4. Therefore, it’s unlikely that God exists.
Unequal distribution of natural endowments is a new kind of evil other than moral evil and natural evil like natural disasters. Its uniqueness is that this inequality is what humans are born with and no one deserves to obtain more endowments, such as talents and innate health, than the others and vice versa. This inequality poses a new evidential problem of evil, not the logical one, since the existence of this unequal distribution of natural endowments lowers the possibility of God’s existence. While free will defense and soul-making defense fail to adequately justify this evil, such evil is pointless and unjustified.

Mizrahi offered an approach to argue from a free will defender point of view:
A. The fact that the unequal distribution of natural endowments is unfair is still our fault, not God’s. It is our fault because what counts as “losing” or “winning” in the natural lottery is determined by social arrangements. Currently, human societies are arranged in such a way that those who are more innately endowed than others get most of the goods.
He rejects A with innate diseases, such as dwarfism, Tay-Sachs disease, Down syndrome, and Patau syndrome, where social arrangement plays no role in their presences. However, in the case of microcephalic and many innate diseases, there are at least some cases in which parents play a role. When mothers have a habit of smoking, taking drugs, or are often exposed to an unhealthy environment, whether consciously or unconsciously, the health of the babies will be harmed to a different extent. Some innate diseases are the results of human behaviors which powered by free will. It’s in the mothers’ responsibility to make sure their babies’ health during pregnancy.

He then offered an approach of soul-making defense to argue:
B. The unequal distribution of natural endowments, although unfair, is necessary insofar as it allows some to care for the “naturally unlucky” in character-forming or soul-making ways.
Mizrahi continues arguing that soul-making defense is not capable of adequately justifying natural inequality by insisting that even if a microcephalic allows others to care for her in morally praiseworthy ways, she still does not deserve to be a microcephalic. I claim that the unequal distribution of natural endowments is justified as it allows for enough spiritual growth for human free creatures. Take dwarfs as an example again, there is a watershed of the right amount of the spiritual growth God will design an environment for humans to undergo. Being dwarf will let the dwarfs have enough spiritual growth which others will spend their whole lifetime to undergo. Since diseases like this are not only about the great suffering, but also the disability to enjoy a normal life. But if one can face and accept these difficulties and abnormality, their souls have been cultivated by God to an adequate level of spiritual growth. This adequate level of spiritual growth is a great good for human free creatures that God can even sacrifice the equal distribution of natural endowments.

Consequently, by offering objection to Mizrahi’s objections to free will defense and soul-making defense, I claim that 3a is false. Premise 3 is not true and thus putting the argument in danger.