Editing Problem of evil (section)

===Defenses and theodicies===
[[Religious responses to the problem of evil|Responses to the problem of evil]] have occasionally been classified as ''defences'' or ''[[Theodicy|theodicies]]'' although authors disagree on the exact definitions.<ref name="Stanford"/><ref name="IepEvidential"/><ref>{{cite encyclopaedia |first=Ted |last=Honderich |author-link=Ted Honderich |year=2005 |title=theodicy |encyclopedia=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy |isbn=978-0-19-926479-7 |quote=[[John Hick]], for example, proposes a theodicy, while [[Alvin Plantinga]] formulates a defence. The idea of human free will often appears in a both of these strategies, but in different ways.}}</ref> Generally, a defense refers to attempts to address the logical argument of evil that says "it is logically impossible – not just unlikely – that God exists".<ref name="IepEvidential"/> A defense does not require a full explanation of evil, and it need not be true, or even probable; it need only be possible, since possibility invalidates the logic of impossibility.<ref>For more explanation regarding contradictory propositions and possible worlds, see Plantinga's "God, Freedom and Evil" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1974), 24–29.</ref><ref name="IepLogical">The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "[https://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm The Logical Problem of Evil]", James R. Beebe</ref>

A theodicy, on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification – a morally or philosophically sufficient reason – for the existence of evil. This is intended to weaken the evidential argument which uses the reality of evil to argue that the existence of God is unlikely.<ref name="IepEvidential"/><ref name="Harvey2013p141">{{cite book|first=Peter |last=Harvey |title=An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC |year=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85942-4 |pages=37, 141 }}</ref>