Contributors

Dane A. Jones
Jeremy Henry
Michael Walrond III
Kyle Stevenson

What is Theodicy?

1. The basic argument for the non- existence of God from the existence of certain kinds of evils ask the question If God exist and is perfectly good, all powerful, and all knowing then why does evil exist? One of the man arguments that stem from this is the logical argument. The logical argument is

P#1:Either God exist or especially bad evils exist but not both.

P#2: Especially bad evils exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God probably does not exist.

The two premises go off the theory that if God is a perfectly good, all powerful, and all knowing being then he would not allow especially bad evils to exist. Since especially bad evils do exist God cannot exist because if he did he would destroy these evils.For example the number sex trafficking incidents of women, men and children in the world is rising and this can be considered a especially bad evil. According to this argument if God existed he would not allow this evil to happen, but this evil does happen so that must mean that God probably does not exist.

P#1 God does not exist because sex trafficking happens.

P#2: If God did exist then he would stop sex trafficking.

P#3: Sex trafficking still exist.

Conclusion: God probably does not exist.

Another example for this argument is the pointless murders that we see around the world. In Flint michigan there are 64.9 murders for every 100,000 citizens. People are getting killed everyday there for no reason. According to the argument if God existed he would not allow these murders to happen.

P#1:God does not exist because pointless murders happen.

P#2: If God existed then pointless murders would not happen.

P#3: Pointless murders do happen.

Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

An Explanation of the Five Theodicies

1.  “Counter Part Theodicy”- This Theodicy suggests that good and evil co-exist with each.  Without evil good would not exist.  The issue is that this suggests that God could not create good without evil and this is conflict with an omnipotent God.

2. Contrast Theodicy- This Theodicy suggests that without evil we wouldn’t know what good is. This is different from the Counter Part Theodicy because this makes the claim about what is known as opposed to what exists.  Counter Part Theodicy suggests without evil good would not exist, however Contrast Theodicy suggests that without evil we wouldn’t be aware of what good is.  An objection to this is this limits the power of God to give knowledge without creating evil.   This theodicy does not succeed because it is not compatible with being omnipotent. An omnipotent God can create good and not create evil.

3.  Freewill Theodicy- The idea that suffering and evil is caused by human choices.  God gives the ability to humans to choose and make decisions about their actions and humans abuse that choice.  An objection to this is an omnipotent God should be able to create a world where human always to choose an action that does not result in suffering.  This  theodicy  does  not succeed because this argue s that God watches evil, has the power to stop it, but does nothing.  This is not compatible with omnibenevolent. 

4.  Natural law Theodicy- The idea that God created world with physical and natural laws.  Evil is the result of those natural laws that God created.  For example, being hit by a car or drowning, or a hurricane.     An objection this is that an omnipotent God could not create natural laws that do not cause evil.  This theodicy succeeds because natural laws in and of themselves do not cause suffering.

5.   John Hick’s Soul Making- Is the idea that evil provides character building and spiritual maturity that could not be obtained otherwise without evil.   An omnipotent God should be able to bring a bought maturity without evil, given that people do mature without suffering.   This  theodicy succeeds however because maturity happens in suffering. 

To Agree or Disagree?

The three basic arguments from evil against the existence of God must be analyzed for their soundness. A classic theodicy, for instance, is usually offered in defense against the logical argument from evil. According to this view, if there are morally justifiable reasons for God to allow evil, then God can still be called all-good, even though God does not intervene to stop evil or suffering.

According to the inductive view, however, morally unjustified suffering exists. Because of this, God must either be less than all-good or less than all-powerful. If God exists, this view says, then no unjustified suffering would exist. This view is defended against by the claim that God knows more--especially concerning what is for the ultimate good of God’s creation--than human beings can possibly know. Because humans do not have all of the facts, so to speak, that would allow us to evaluate the moral rightness of God’s actions, we can not determine what is an is not morally permissible.

These theodicies fall short of justifying the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God. Firstly, they fail to account for the fact that the actions of moral agents can be justified without reference to a god of any kind. They also fail to recognize that any form of “evil” that is not the work of a moral agent (such as a natural disaster) can be explained rationally and empirically--again, without reference to a god. Finally, there are some acts of cruelty--such as the suffering of innocents during the holocaust and the transatlantic slave trade--that preclude any claims to a “divine plan” as a means of justification. One wonders is there could be any “plan” so perfect as to morally justify a hands-off God in such scenarios.