The argument from the problem of divine injustice argues that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent because there is evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then he has the power to prevent evil. If God is omnibenevolent, then he desires to prevent evil. Therefore, the existence of evil is evidence that God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent.

The response that claims that God allows evil to exist for a greater good is often criticized on the grounds that the greater good is not worth the suffering of innocent people. For example, it is difficult to see how the greater good of preventing a future war could justify the suffering of innocent children in the present.

The response that claims that evil is a necessary part of the universe is often criticized on the grounds that evil is not necessary for the existence of good. For example, it is possible to imagine a world in which there is good without evil. Such a world would be a better place than the world we live in.

The response that claims that we cannot understand God's reasons for allowing evil is often criticized on the grounds that it is a cop-out. It is a way of avoiding the question of why God allows evil by simply saying that we cannot understand his reasons. However, this response does not provide any real comfort to those who are suffering from evil.

The conclusion of the argument from the problem of divine injustice is that God is not omnibenevolent. This is because the existence of evil in the world is evidence that God either does not desire to prevent evil or does not have the power to prevent evil. Either way, this means that God is not omnibenevolent.