Editing Theodicy (section)

===Ancient religions===
"Writings and discourses on theodicy by Jews, Greeks, Christians, and Eastern religions have graced our planet for thousands of years."<ref>{{cite book |last=Birnbaum |first=David |year=1989 |title=God and Evil |location=Hoboken |publisher=Ktav |page=4}}</ref> In the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt]] (2000–1700 BC) as "in Ancient Mesopotamian and Israelite literature", theodicy was an important issue.<ref>{{cite book |last=Assman |first=Jan |year=2001 |title=The Search for God in Ancient Egypt |translator-first=David |translator-last=Lorton |publisher=Cornell University Press |page=169}}</ref>{{non sequitur|date=January 2025}}

Philip Irving Mitchell of [[Dallas Baptist University]] notes that some philosophers have cast the pursuit of theodicy as a modern one, as earlier scholars used the problem of evil to support the existence of one particular god over another, explain wisdom, or explain a conversion, rather than to justify God's goodness.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy.htm | title=Theodicy: An Overview | publisher=Dallas Baptist University | access-date=July 17, 2012 | last=Mitchell |first=Philip Irving}}</ref> [[Sarah Iles Johnston]] argues that ancient civilizations, such as the ancient [[Ancient Mesopotamia|Mesopotamians]], [[ancient Greece|Greeks]], [[Ancient Rome|Romans]], and [[Ancient Egypt|Egyptians]] held [[polytheistic]] beliefs that may have enabled them to deal with the concept of theodicy differently. These religions taught the existence of many [[deity|gods]] and [[goddess]]es who controlled various aspects of daily life. These early religions may have avoided the question of theodicy by endowing their deities with the same flaws and jealousies that plagued [[human]]ity. No one god or goddess was fundamentally good or evil; this explained that bad things could happen to good people if they angered a deity because the gods could exercise the same free will that humankind possesses. Such religions taught that some gods were more inclined to be helpful and benevolent while others were more likely to be spiteful and aggressive. In this sense, the evil gods could be blamed for misfortune, while the good gods could be petitioned with prayer and sacrifices to make things right. There was still a sense of justice in that individuals who were right with the gods could avoid punishment.<ref>Johnston 2004, pp. 531–547</ref>

The "[[Epicurean trilemma]]", however, was already raised {{circa|300&nbsp;BC}} by [[Epicurus]], according to [[David Hume]] in 1779. According to Hume, the trilemma describes the problem of reconciling an omnipotent deity with its benevolence and the existence of evil. However, if Epicurus did write a discussion on the specific problems that Hume attributes to him, it would not have been tied with the question of an omnibenevolent and omniscient God, as Hume assumes (for Hume does not cite, nor make any implication that he had knowledge of Epicurus's writings on this matter that held any greater weight than academic hearsay or legend).{{original research inline|reason=Opinion about Hume's interpretation of Epicurus must be attributed to a source|date=May 2024}}