Theodicy: A plausible reason why God would allow evil/horrendous evil, not a possible reason.
I think we can all agree that there are some really terrible theodicies that have been used and are still being used to explain why there is horrendous suffering in the world if God exists.
This post isn’t about me (or you) defending a particular theodicy, rather it is to discuss the failure of so many theodicies.
1. Does the fact of so many failed theodicies count as evidence that there probably is no/ won’t be a successful theodicy now/or in the future? It seems like prima facie evidence in an inductive manner.
2. Some have tried to say that a combination of theodicies is a much better strategy. But even this doesn’t seem to be enough or change the situation at all. If it was, I don’t know why more apologists aren’t using this method. Let’s assume it does make the theist’s case stronger. Just because it is made stronger does not mean it is made strong. Even if all the bases are covered, we can see how this doesn’t actually solve the case because V still isn’t a plausible response to W and X isn’t a plausible reason to Y. In other words, the problem is still there! Not to mention a single theodicy is more parsimonious than a combination of theodicies.
3. I realize you might have a theodicy that you find plausible, but I think you should at least grant that there are some terrible theodicies.