Aug Theodicy Strengths

Question 1

Doesn’t need be Literal

Answer 1

Augs theodicy doesn’t need to be interpreted literally to have meaning.
Plantinga and Swinburne defend that the concept of evil arises from misuse of free will.
Literal or not it has the same takeaway.

Question 2

Evil as a fault of god?

Answer 2

Brian Davies: Evil cannot be called a substance as its a “gap between what be, and what ought be”
Aug is therefore not right to blame G creating evil as its only deprivation of good.

Question 3

Aug accounts for Natural Evil

Answer 3

As a result of introducing moral evil.
Has to be a possibility of natural evil if we are free.
If we are to develop and change, the Nat world cannot be paradise.

Question 4

Better to develop and be given.

Answer 4

Augs supporters argue FW is so valuable is justifies risk of evil.
Goodness developed from FW is far better than ready-made good.
Vardy: ‘If god wants us to be genuinely loving, then he had to give us the opportunity to develop this quality for ourselves”
A02- Is FW a price worth paying?

Question 5

Augs arg is compatable w xianity.

Answer 5

Therefore appeals to Xian’s who accept the authority for the bible.
Bible is the direct word of G to them.
A02- Just cos its compatible, doesn’t make it good.

Question 6

Evil is the result of FW.

Answer 6

Plantinga: “If god had made us so that we always choose good we would not be properly free”