Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The word theodicy derives from the Greek words Θεός, Theos and δίκη, dikē. Theos is translated "God" and dikē can be translated as either "trial" or "judgement". [5] Thus, 'theodicy' literally means "justifying God". [6]
Plantinga offers a free will defense, instead of a theodicy, that began as a response to three assertions raised by J. L. Mackie. [85] First, Mackie asserts "there is no possible world" in which the "essential" theistic beliefs Mackie describes can all be true.
Jewish theodicy continues to experience extensive revision while continuing to assert the difference between the human and divine perspective of evil; it remains rooted in the nature of creation itself and the limitation inherent in matter's capacity to be perfected; and the action of freewill includes the potential for perfection from ...
Generally, a defense is an attempt to show there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. The argument need not be true, or even probable, it need only be possible to be sufficient to invalidate the claim of logical impossibility.
The Theodicy was deemed illogical by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. [20] Russell argues that moral and physical evil must result from metaphysical evil (imperfection). But imperfection is merely limitation; if existence is good, as Leibniz maintains, then the mere existence of evil requires that evil also be good.
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, apología, 'speaking in defense') is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. [1] [2] [3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian ...
Skeptical theism provides a defense against the evidential argument from evil, but does not take a position on God's actual reason for allowing a particular instance of evil. The defense seeks to show that there are good reasons to believe that God could have justified reasons for allowing a particular evil that we cannot discern. Consequently ...
A defense need not argue that this is a probable or plausible explanation, only that the defense is logically possible. A defense attempts to answer the logical problem of evil. A theodicy, on the other hand, is a more ambitious attempt to provide a plausible justification for the existence of evil.