The Problem of Evil (Theodicy)

Epicurus' Formulation

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Defenses, Arguments, and Rebuttals

Defense	Main Argument	Rebuttal
Free Will Defense	Evil results from human free will	Doesn't account for natural evil; an omnipotent God could create free beings who always choose good
Soul-Making Theodicy	Suffering fosters spiritual growth	Excessive suffering seems unjustified; a benevolent God could achieve the same ends with less suffering
Greater Good Theodicy	Evil leads to greater goods	Potentially justifies any evil; unfalsifiable
Skeptical Theism	Human cognitive limitations prevent judgments about gratuitous evil	May lead to moral skepticism; doesn't solve the problem, only claims it's unsolvable
Process Theology	God persuades rather than coerces; not omnipotent in the classical sense	Challenges traditional divine attributes; may not align with classical theism
Open Theism	God doesn't know future free actions	Limits God's omniscience; challenges traditional understanding of divine foreknowledge