This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodicy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cosmodicy was copied or moved into Theodicy with this edit on 15 February, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2009. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
The translation of Isaiah 45:7 is a KJV mis-translation. Can we get a better translation that does not attribute the existence of evil to God?
References
How about adding a couple of more translations to that section as follows, since "evil" in the King James version in this context may not mean what we think it means,.. there is a section further down discussing the issue, 'evil " may not be the exact intent from the original source documents; In any case giving a wider latitude of consideration: Suggest adding these two currently popular English Bible translations for the verse:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD do all these things( New International Version).
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.( New Living Translation).
If no scholarly objections I shall return in a couple of weeks or so and make the changes SteamWiki ( talk) 02:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I am merging most of the material in this article with The problem of evil article, leaving just a few sentences to define "theodicy" as a term. There will probably be a short lapse of time before the material finds its way over to the other article. So, please don't be too trigger happy on the revert button. -- 66.82.112.10 15:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What is this? It sounds like something from list of collective nouns for birds...
Some previous versions of this sentence:
And now we have this since I think December or so.
Alan Saunders, on the Philosopher's Zone, once joked that perhaps the appropriate collective noun for philosophers should be "a confusion of philosophers". Merzul ( talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense to the authors, but this section reads like an opinion piece. I'm a newbie here but it seems to me that this is a textbook case of original research:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [1]
The entire section on free will is a clear violation of everything I've bolded. I almost deleted it but I don't want to create a disturbance. Maybe an admin will do it.
I only skimmed the rest of the article, but it all seemed equally unencyclopedic. Jdtapaboc ( talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
difference between this article and problem of evil? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"Various explanations of the exact relationship of Adam to his posterity have been offered, but what concerns us at present is only the doctrine of Adam's legal representation of the race."
Here another question presents itself. How could Adam be held accountable (and with him the entire human race), if he was not free to do other than he did do—if God really intended for him to do exactly as he did?
Persides the fact that most of this article seems like someones essay, or one persons point of view on the subject, the first sentence says "but what concerns us". I thought this was supposed to be fact based, and sentences like "what concerns us" shouldn't be here. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Serously persides the fact that the whole thing seems like original research, where does anyone say that adam was not free to do what he did? CITATIONS are required if an article is to be taken serously! What i am about to say is original research yet it seems i could also put this into the article as it has as many citations as the 2nd sentence. "Genesis depics Adam as not a normal human being, but a human with all the knowledge of GOD and thus, he's desicision to disobey God was done with full knowledge of what he was infact doing. Christians believe for this reason that Adam represented the human race, as Adams sin was purposely done with full knowledge of the concequences, he rejected god"
Now of course i wouldn't write that, persides the spelling mistakes, it hasn't got any citations. So why is it much of this article has been allowed to stay? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.217.152.146 (
talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am just noting a theodicy argument I got from talking with a Greek Orthodox. I don't know if it standard Greek Orthodox theology. At any rate,
The argument goes that good has an essence (ousia) while evil does not. In some sense, good is real while evil is unreal. Evil is like a vacuum in a bottle, it is there and affects reality, but it is itself not real.
In this view, the answer to the problem of evil is that evil does not truly exist.
This viewpoint reminds me of the argument that God exists because "God is the greatest thing that can be imagined, and the greatest imaginable thing would have all good attributes, including existence." It more or less maps the good-evil dichotomy to the real-unreal dichotomy.
I think this view of evil may be related to ancient Greek philosophies of form and essence.
Sorry for the lame exposition. Maybe someone else can find more about these ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.8.185 ( talk) 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was merged without opposition to the problem of evil article. Recently one user has undone this and restored a version many months old (not the one prior to the merge). This seeems to be based on his view of what theodicy is. In order to avoid duplicate discussion, please see and discuus here: Talk:Problem_of_evil#Definition_of_theodicy_and_large_scale_changes. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 07:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article was not merged without opposition. It was merged without comment. Indeed as Mangojuice told you, there is no consensus for a merge. A quick glance above indicates that there has in fact been ZERO discussion of such a merge on this article; except for the section 'moving stuff to the problem of evil', which both Netesq and Jepugh07 clearly objected to.
In fact, as you'll note mentioned above, As Slrubenstein correctly asserts, theodicy is concerned with more than the problem of evil.. For example, it includes attempts to justify the philandering behaviour of Greek gods [1] [2].
Anthony on Stilts ( talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I think it entirely inappropriate to merge "Theodicy" with "Problem of evil". I think the two are separate, distinct, and each worthy of its own article.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
See [2] [3] The "problem of evil" usually refers the existence of evil together with a 3-O being. Of course, there are many problems with evil, all problems can be seen as evils, all evils are problems, etc, but this is not how the phrase is usually understood. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, S Marshall, I appreciate your coming to my defense--but I did say "idiotic hunch," and I meant it. HOWEVER, I was not aware that Anthony on Stilts gave a, well, somewhat skewed representation of the affair: I though they were really listing on someone else's suggestion, and that's not the case, I think, although it's hard to tell in what seems to be a pissing contest. In other words, had Ht86 wanted to delete "theodicy," that would be an idiotic hunch--but that was not what they wanted, ergo, there was no idiotic hunch. (So Anthony, don't go around quoting my words as if they support your point--right after "idiotic hunch," I reserved a trout slap for you.) There's a whole bunch of other things here--including Anthony's listing of the article at AfD, which was a gigantic waste of time for a lot of people. For the record, I think that in this discussion Anthony is more right and Ht86 is being much too "3-0 centric", and I think that Anthony used some pretty deplorable methods; both editors need to maybe chill out some, and I'm getting out of this one, since the discussion on pagan metal has much more at stake. S Marshall, I'll see you again, in a happier place! Drmies ( talk) 00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If you add a new section, please move this section to the end of the page
Claimed sources for that theodicy refers to something more than answers to the problem of evil. Which is incorrect.
Please do not remove the sourced definitions of theodicy I added. If you object, then discuss here first so we can reach a consensus. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove the citation needed tags. If you object to them, discuss here so we can reach a consensus. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed asking about the definition (From the Greek words 'Theos' (god) and 'Dike' (justice). Does it mean justification of god (in the sense vindication of the divine attributes[1]) or justification of the existence of god given the existence of evil? In other words, is it exclusively a synonym for problem of evil and nothing else, or does it also include any justification of a god/God, such as justification of the philandering behaviour of the Greek gods[2][3]. Consequently should the article be more like this version, something else, or should it not even exist as an article at all?)
I acknowledge that I wrote the referenced page. It is, however, not just my work, but represents the beliefs of the Church of Christ congregation which controls that web site. (I don't control that site.) Davrids ( talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is addressed in the article, but I don't think it is: One theodicy I've heard a lot recently is that God will remove all evil from the world, during the end times. (A counter-argument being that justice delayed is justice denied.) So this should be included in it, once some good citations are found.
////////
it could be just as true that god is evil rather than good... Thus Spake Good ( talk) 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a grade school assignment to cite definition after definition from different dictionaries and encyclopedias. And it is a citing of secondary sources.
I would recommend giving the best definition of theodicy that you can. If there is so much disagreement that this is impossible, then say that, and give the most pertinent meanings in common usage, with citations to original sources.
DMJ001 ( talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't say I'm comfortable with it. Not a personal beef, mind you, I just expect Muslims to find it offensive. God is a thoroughly Christian word, and Jews seem to have accepted it in lieu of Yahweh (which is actually just YHWH), but Muslims insist on Allah, don't they?
The entire cosmodicy article is only two paragraphs and an extended quotation - the Theodicy article is not so long that the content couldn't fit there. ESPECIALLY since the quotation does not use "cosmodicy" in the way defined in this article. In fact, it would appear that the identification with Nietzsche is using the same definition as Ashley, neither of which is anything like an "attempt to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe." eldamorie ( talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The Problem of evil article already has an en extensive discussion of various defenses and theodicies. In order to avoid a duplicate discussion in two different articles I propose we move the material about specific theodicies in this article to the appropriate sections already discussing these theodicies in the Problem of evil article. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"Evil" is used in both its 'natural' and 'moral' form in this article without clarification (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil). It is also unclear whether 'evil' refers solely to human behavior, as some instances imply it does while others imply it does not. If someone with more knowledge in the area could tidy this up it would be great as the article is clumsy and hard to read in the present form. If "evil" has no established technical meaning I suggest it not be used unless referring to a well defined concept (such as 'Problem of Evil'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.33.222 ( talk) 10:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-7.htm I think the writer meant 45:7. http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
However this interpretation and use in this context requires KJV era English use of the word "evil" to be equal to "evil" as defined by the article which it is clearly not from the surrounding verses. Additionally the vast bulk of translations appear to not use "evil" as the preferred translation of the Hebrew. I don't know the protocol but I would source this passage to a scholar who has argued this specially based in original languages or remove the line of reasoning as a spurious artifact created by english homonym. 2600:1017:B009:25AB:A4C6:246E:D889:99EC ( talk) 18:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Robert
This section should mention that the Biblical explanation is found in Genesis 1-3, especially Genesis 3: 1-5. Specifically the reason why God allows evil is not because of lack of power or knowledge or such, but because there the challenge of God's right to rule, God's sovereignty, was made. The adversary Satan made the claim that God lies and that humans are better off alone, without God as their ruler. This can't be settled by power, but the only way to settle it is to let time pass, let humans live without God's rulership and instead have Satan as their ruler for a limited time, and see what the result would be. As we now know, the result is terrible, but it's not for lack of power of God, but it is a legal precedent that needs to be set lest someone else in the future make the same claim that Satan made in Eden. References: gen 3:1-5 , job 1,2, james 1:13, revelation 12:9-12; 21:1-5, daniel 2:44, etc. 223.198.79.146 ( talk) 18:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This looks like the writer's personal view since he's citing one (poor, old, inferior) translation to support his arguments and then saying "it's hard to reconcile a early modern English phrasing of this scripture taken out of context with the generalized beliefs of some Christian sects about the goodness of God" I'm certainly not going to go stomp the section or anything but I'd really like to see direct quotation of peer reviewed scholars describing this rather than a wiki writers exegesis of KJV text. I especially want to see original language analysis or at least small cross translation comparison. KJV is not a good source and I bleive this runs afoul of citation and argument building wiki policy.
Trebor42k ( talk) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Theodicy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am copying and repeating what I wrote above to be sure and give everyone a chance to respond.
There is a comment above noting that no one has defined evil. It is an old comment, but in looking at the article, it doesn't seem as though anyone addressed this. Theodicy is defined throughout this article by using the terms evil and God without defining those terms. I agree with the commenter that it is an oversight--a small oversight perhaps--but nevertheless an oversight. If it is okay with those who have already put in so much excellent work on this article, I would like to add those definitions. I can post my offering here first before simply adding it to the article if that is desired and everyone can offer their views on including it or not. Would that be agreeable? I will give this a week or so, and if I don't receive an objection, I will just go ahead and add discussion of those definitions to the definition section. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
In the second paragraph in the introduction it states: "The problem was also analyzed by pre-modern theologians and philosophers in the Islamic world." My immediate reaction was "by whom?" I am sure, I am not the only one who is interested to learn more about this. Also, The fact that many Western thinkers are being listed (Leibnitz, Hick, Plotonius, Weber, etc.) could be perceived as discriminatory against Muslims.
I hope that the auther of the statement will be able to add the necessary references. Thank you. Hskoppek ( talk) 08:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming the Greek terms are correct aren't 'Trying God' or 'Judging God' equally valid translations of the word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8280:28D0:24FF:1508:984:636D ( talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article says:
Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, "is an attempt" to answer the question of..
NEXT, it says: Some theodicies also address the evidential problem of evil "by attempting" "to make the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil or suffering in the world."[
NEXT it says: Unlike a defense, "which tries to" demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible.[
FROM THE CAPTION OF THE IMAGE it says: Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" "in an attempt to" justify God's existence in light of the apparent imperfections of the world...
The use of the words "attempt" and "tries" in their form here are clear (perhaps subconscious) bias indicators or at best extremely poor word choices. What this wiki article says Theodicy is, by its own description, is an idea, a philosophy and even perhaps a matter of faith-- but not a matter of fact that one can say it was "tried" or "attempted" to be shown. Using those words implies it is a certain, provable, truth. Theodicy as discussed here, by its own description, is a living discussion, not a provable truth. 2600:1702:4910:6A60:15BD:85B6:9FAF:355A ( talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kowalewskikarley (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Morri455.
— Assignment last updated by Lincol7 ( talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theodicy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cosmodicy was copied or moved into Theodicy with this edit on 15 February, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2009. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
The translation of Isaiah 45:7 is a KJV mis-translation. Can we get a better translation that does not attribute the existence of evil to God?
References
How about adding a couple of more translations to that section as follows, since "evil" in the King James version in this context may not mean what we think it means,.. there is a section further down discussing the issue, 'evil " may not be the exact intent from the original source documents; In any case giving a wider latitude of consideration: Suggest adding these two currently popular English Bible translations for the verse:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD do all these things( New International Version).
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.( New Living Translation).
If no scholarly objections I shall return in a couple of weeks or so and make the changes SteamWiki ( talk) 02:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I am merging most of the material in this article with The problem of evil article, leaving just a few sentences to define "theodicy" as a term. There will probably be a short lapse of time before the material finds its way over to the other article. So, please don't be too trigger happy on the revert button. -- 66.82.112.10 15:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What is this? It sounds like something from list of collective nouns for birds...
Some previous versions of this sentence:
And now we have this since I think December or so.
Alan Saunders, on the Philosopher's Zone, once joked that perhaps the appropriate collective noun for philosophers should be "a confusion of philosophers". Merzul ( talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense to the authors, but this section reads like an opinion piece. I'm a newbie here but it seems to me that this is a textbook case of original research:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [1]
The entire section on free will is a clear violation of everything I've bolded. I almost deleted it but I don't want to create a disturbance. Maybe an admin will do it.
I only skimmed the rest of the article, but it all seemed equally unencyclopedic. Jdtapaboc ( talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
difference between this article and problem of evil? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"Various explanations of the exact relationship of Adam to his posterity have been offered, but what concerns us at present is only the doctrine of Adam's legal representation of the race."
Here another question presents itself. How could Adam be held accountable (and with him the entire human race), if he was not free to do other than he did do—if God really intended for him to do exactly as he did?
Persides the fact that most of this article seems like someones essay, or one persons point of view on the subject, the first sentence says "but what concerns us". I thought this was supposed to be fact based, and sentences like "what concerns us" shouldn't be here. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Serously persides the fact that the whole thing seems like original research, where does anyone say that adam was not free to do what he did? CITATIONS are required if an article is to be taken serously! What i am about to say is original research yet it seems i could also put this into the article as it has as many citations as the 2nd sentence. "Genesis depics Adam as not a normal human being, but a human with all the knowledge of GOD and thus, he's desicision to disobey God was done with full knowledge of what he was infact doing. Christians believe for this reason that Adam represented the human race, as Adams sin was purposely done with full knowledge of the concequences, he rejected god"
Now of course i wouldn't write that, persides the spelling mistakes, it hasn't got any citations. So why is it much of this article has been allowed to stay? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.217.152.146 (
talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am just noting a theodicy argument I got from talking with a Greek Orthodox. I don't know if it standard Greek Orthodox theology. At any rate,
The argument goes that good has an essence (ousia) while evil does not. In some sense, good is real while evil is unreal. Evil is like a vacuum in a bottle, it is there and affects reality, but it is itself not real.
In this view, the answer to the problem of evil is that evil does not truly exist.
This viewpoint reminds me of the argument that God exists because "God is the greatest thing that can be imagined, and the greatest imaginable thing would have all good attributes, including existence." It more or less maps the good-evil dichotomy to the real-unreal dichotomy.
I think this view of evil may be related to ancient Greek philosophies of form and essence.
Sorry for the lame exposition. Maybe someone else can find more about these ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.8.185 ( talk) 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was merged without opposition to the problem of evil article. Recently one user has undone this and restored a version many months old (not the one prior to the merge). This seeems to be based on his view of what theodicy is. In order to avoid duplicate discussion, please see and discuus here: Talk:Problem_of_evil#Definition_of_theodicy_and_large_scale_changes. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 07:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article was not merged without opposition. It was merged without comment. Indeed as Mangojuice told you, there is no consensus for a merge. A quick glance above indicates that there has in fact been ZERO discussion of such a merge on this article; except for the section 'moving stuff to the problem of evil', which both Netesq and Jepugh07 clearly objected to.
In fact, as you'll note mentioned above, As Slrubenstein correctly asserts, theodicy is concerned with more than the problem of evil.. For example, it includes attempts to justify the philandering behaviour of Greek gods [1] [2].
Anthony on Stilts ( talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I think it entirely inappropriate to merge "Theodicy" with "Problem of evil". I think the two are separate, distinct, and each worthy of its own article.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
See [2] [3] The "problem of evil" usually refers the existence of evil together with a 3-O being. Of course, there are many problems with evil, all problems can be seen as evils, all evils are problems, etc, but this is not how the phrase is usually understood. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, S Marshall, I appreciate your coming to my defense--but I did say "idiotic hunch," and I meant it. HOWEVER, I was not aware that Anthony on Stilts gave a, well, somewhat skewed representation of the affair: I though they were really listing on someone else's suggestion, and that's not the case, I think, although it's hard to tell in what seems to be a pissing contest. In other words, had Ht86 wanted to delete "theodicy," that would be an idiotic hunch--but that was not what they wanted, ergo, there was no idiotic hunch. (So Anthony, don't go around quoting my words as if they support your point--right after "idiotic hunch," I reserved a trout slap for you.) There's a whole bunch of other things here--including Anthony's listing of the article at AfD, which was a gigantic waste of time for a lot of people. For the record, I think that in this discussion Anthony is more right and Ht86 is being much too "3-0 centric", and I think that Anthony used some pretty deplorable methods; both editors need to maybe chill out some, and I'm getting out of this one, since the discussion on pagan metal has much more at stake. S Marshall, I'll see you again, in a happier place! Drmies ( talk) 00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If you add a new section, please move this section to the end of the page
Claimed sources for that theodicy refers to something more than answers to the problem of evil. Which is incorrect.
Please do not remove the sourced definitions of theodicy I added. If you object, then discuss here first so we can reach a consensus. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove the citation needed tags. If you object to them, discuss here so we can reach a consensus. Ht686rg90 ( talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed asking about the definition (From the Greek words 'Theos' (god) and 'Dike' (justice). Does it mean justification of god (in the sense vindication of the divine attributes[1]) or justification of the existence of god given the existence of evil? In other words, is it exclusively a synonym for problem of evil and nothing else, or does it also include any justification of a god/God, such as justification of the philandering behaviour of the Greek gods[2][3]. Consequently should the article be more like this version, something else, or should it not even exist as an article at all?)
I acknowledge that I wrote the referenced page. It is, however, not just my work, but represents the beliefs of the Church of Christ congregation which controls that web site. (I don't control that site.) Davrids ( talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is addressed in the article, but I don't think it is: One theodicy I've heard a lot recently is that God will remove all evil from the world, during the end times. (A counter-argument being that justice delayed is justice denied.) So this should be included in it, once some good citations are found.
////////
it could be just as true that god is evil rather than good... Thus Spake Good ( talk) 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a grade school assignment to cite definition after definition from different dictionaries and encyclopedias. And it is a citing of secondary sources.
I would recommend giving the best definition of theodicy that you can. If there is so much disagreement that this is impossible, then say that, and give the most pertinent meanings in common usage, with citations to original sources.
DMJ001 ( talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't say I'm comfortable with it. Not a personal beef, mind you, I just expect Muslims to find it offensive. God is a thoroughly Christian word, and Jews seem to have accepted it in lieu of Yahweh (which is actually just YHWH), but Muslims insist on Allah, don't they?
The entire cosmodicy article is only two paragraphs and an extended quotation - the Theodicy article is not so long that the content couldn't fit there. ESPECIALLY since the quotation does not use "cosmodicy" in the way defined in this article. In fact, it would appear that the identification with Nietzsche is using the same definition as Ashley, neither of which is anything like an "attempt to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe." eldamorie ( talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The Problem of evil article already has an en extensive discussion of various defenses and theodicies. In order to avoid a duplicate discussion in two different articles I propose we move the material about specific theodicies in this article to the appropriate sections already discussing these theodicies in the Problem of evil article. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"Evil" is used in both its 'natural' and 'moral' form in this article without clarification (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil). It is also unclear whether 'evil' refers solely to human behavior, as some instances imply it does while others imply it does not. If someone with more knowledge in the area could tidy this up it would be great as the article is clumsy and hard to read in the present form. If "evil" has no established technical meaning I suggest it not be used unless referring to a well defined concept (such as 'Problem of Evil'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.33.222 ( talk) 10:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-7.htm I think the writer meant 45:7. http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
However this interpretation and use in this context requires KJV era English use of the word "evil" to be equal to "evil" as defined by the article which it is clearly not from the surrounding verses. Additionally the vast bulk of translations appear to not use "evil" as the preferred translation of the Hebrew. I don't know the protocol but I would source this passage to a scholar who has argued this specially based in original languages or remove the line of reasoning as a spurious artifact created by english homonym. 2600:1017:B009:25AB:A4C6:246E:D889:99EC ( talk) 18:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Robert
This section should mention that the Biblical explanation is found in Genesis 1-3, especially Genesis 3: 1-5. Specifically the reason why God allows evil is not because of lack of power or knowledge or such, but because there the challenge of God's right to rule, God's sovereignty, was made. The adversary Satan made the claim that God lies and that humans are better off alone, without God as their ruler. This can't be settled by power, but the only way to settle it is to let time pass, let humans live without God's rulership and instead have Satan as their ruler for a limited time, and see what the result would be. As we now know, the result is terrible, but it's not for lack of power of God, but it is a legal precedent that needs to be set lest someone else in the future make the same claim that Satan made in Eden. References: gen 3:1-5 , job 1,2, james 1:13, revelation 12:9-12; 21:1-5, daniel 2:44, etc. 223.198.79.146 ( talk) 18:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This looks like the writer's personal view since he's citing one (poor, old, inferior) translation to support his arguments and then saying "it's hard to reconcile a early modern English phrasing of this scripture taken out of context with the generalized beliefs of some Christian sects about the goodness of God" I'm certainly not going to go stomp the section or anything but I'd really like to see direct quotation of peer reviewed scholars describing this rather than a wiki writers exegesis of KJV text. I especially want to see original language analysis or at least small cross translation comparison. KJV is not a good source and I bleive this runs afoul of citation and argument building wiki policy.
Trebor42k ( talk) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Theodicy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am copying and repeating what I wrote above to be sure and give everyone a chance to respond.
There is a comment above noting that no one has defined evil. It is an old comment, but in looking at the article, it doesn't seem as though anyone addressed this. Theodicy is defined throughout this article by using the terms evil and God without defining those terms. I agree with the commenter that it is an oversight--a small oversight perhaps--but nevertheless an oversight. If it is okay with those who have already put in so much excellent work on this article, I would like to add those definitions. I can post my offering here first before simply adding it to the article if that is desired and everyone can offer their views on including it or not. Would that be agreeable? I will give this a week or so, and if I don't receive an objection, I will just go ahead and add discussion of those definitions to the definition section. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
In the second paragraph in the introduction it states: "The problem was also analyzed by pre-modern theologians and philosophers in the Islamic world." My immediate reaction was "by whom?" I am sure, I am not the only one who is interested to learn more about this. Also, The fact that many Western thinkers are being listed (Leibnitz, Hick, Plotonius, Weber, etc.) could be perceived as discriminatory against Muslims.
I hope that the auther of the statement will be able to add the necessary references. Thank you. Hskoppek ( talk) 08:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming the Greek terms are correct aren't 'Trying God' or 'Judging God' equally valid translations of the word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8280:28D0:24FF:1508:984:636D ( talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article says:
Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, "is an attempt" to answer the question of..
NEXT, it says: Some theodicies also address the evidential problem of evil "by attempting" "to make the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil or suffering in the world."[
NEXT it says: Unlike a defense, "which tries to" demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible.[
FROM THE CAPTION OF THE IMAGE it says: Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" "in an attempt to" justify God's existence in light of the apparent imperfections of the world...
The use of the words "attempt" and "tries" in their form here are clear (perhaps subconscious) bias indicators or at best extremely poor word choices. What this wiki article says Theodicy is, by its own description, is an idea, a philosophy and even perhaps a matter of faith-- but not a matter of fact that one can say it was "tried" or "attempted" to be shown. Using those words implies it is a certain, provable, truth. Theodicy as discussed here, by its own description, is a living discussion, not a provable truth. 2600:1702:4910:6A60:15BD:85B6:9FAF:355A ( talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kowalewskikarley (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Morri455.
— Assignment last updated by Lincol7 ( talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)