Theodicy

What follows is taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy on the subject of Theodicy. Which deals with the goodness of God in the face of all the evil acts in the world and how a Good God can allow these evil acts to take place. This is being posted in reply to Skeptic’s idea of discussing Theodicy.

Pax Vitae

I don’t think a working Theodicy is nessicary, as long as there is shown to be room for theodicy.

Please explain further Uccisore. What do you mean by a working Theodicy? and what do you mean by room for one?

A theodicy interacts with the Problem of Evil. Most commonly, it is a proposed tool to show that the Problem of Evil doesn’t make the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent impossible.
What I’m saying is that a theodicy isn’t nessicary to do that. All one need do is show that it is possible for evil and God to exist, in other words, show that it is possible that there is some correct theodicy. This is enough to defeat the Problem of Evil. Coming up with a theory of what that correct theodicy is is probably a bit of a wasted effort, since there’s most likely no way to confirm it as true or false.

True, but a lot of those arguments presuppose freewill. It is quite possible that freewill doesn’t exist, and is just an illusion in our mind. If that is the case then any pain and suffering is cause by the instigator of the chain of events, and this chain can only follow a single path. So in that case if God created a world without freewill and there is evil it’s there because God wanted it. As we have no will to choose our paths, we then end up always facing evil, which is only there because it was predestined.

A lot of things called ‘evil’ in the world have to do with our Moral Codes. Some acts that were once evil are how no longer considered evil. So this begs the question, was it really an evil act at the time it was committed? Or to kill somebody in self defence is not considered evil, but to aimlessly kill is. Why the difference? I’d say it’s because of our moral codes. I don’t believe in ‘Evil’ as a greater entity that exists, but only as something that exists in moral relativism. I don’t believe you can prove God’s non-existence by evil. But it does affect the type of personality that the God must have after examining the world, which he created.

What do you guys think?

Pax Vitae

My argument against predestination has always been that our own sense of free-will is so obvious and unquestionable that any argument against it would be counter-intuitive, and thus the argument itself is always going to be less credible than belief in free will. Very similar to someone presenting me with an argument that I don't exist. Unless that argument convincingly explains the sensation that I exist, it fails. 
 Anyway, I don't mean to advance a free-will theodicy or any other. I mean to say that if it can be shown that it needs to be demonstrated that the existence of God and the existence of Evil are incompatible before a theodicy is even nessicary.  I don't think this demonstration can be made.

That’s an excellent point! Moral Relativism pretty much makes the Problem of Evil a non-starter. Looking at the world (and all the information it offers) and using that information to discover what God must me like is much better than coming up with a God and trying to make the world fit into the concept.