Besty hinted at the fundamental problem here, on page 68, when he said this:
@flamegrilled - you are arguing for "this is possible". I am beyond that to "what is probable"
That's it, in a nutshell, since ALL of the various theodocies attempting to address 'the problem of evil' (including 'natural evil') share the following characteristics:
1) Reliance on the use of INDUCTIVE reasoning (i.e. going from general principles of the nature of God to create specific explanations as to why God failed to intervene).
With inductive reasoning, the 'burden of proof' is incredibly low (as discussed below), since believers need only show their proposed solution(s) are merely 'plausible/possible', and NOT prove that the claim is PROBABLE. The explanation(s) needs to only offer a glimmer of hope, the least-bit of possibility of being true, in order to be valid, esp when many operate in PARALLEL.
Again, that determination requires use of values, which are variable (since different people carry different world-views and values).
2) The question of theodicy arises from uncertainty, and hence we MUST revert to a probabilistic analysis, or else fruitlessly expend energy and time by chasing after certainty (AKA absolutes) when none exist.
The theist is 'appealing to uncertainty' when they cite God's ineffability/benign neglect/need to know defenses, and it IS intellectually-honest valid reasoning, since it IS honest to admit to not knowing, when it's DISHONEST to claim to KNOW what we don't know! Honest scientists and perfectly-rational people do it ALL THE TIME, admitting that 'known unknowns' exist, and in fact the very premise is what DRIVES further scientific inquiry, trying to answer questions (where we answer one, and inevitably two more questions arise).
'Appealing to uncertainty' is what agnostics rely upon when they say they don't have enough information to make a decision on the existence of God, so they remain neutral, undecided. So on the 'problem of evil', the theist is using the EXACT SAME APPROACH as an agnostic, saying there's not enough information to 'connect the dots' between God and natural evil, and hence they're not willing to "curse God and die" by blaming God for 'natural evil'.
Don't confuse remaining neutral on the matter with the logical fallacy called, 'appealing to ignorance/uncertainty': this occurs when someone uses a lack of knowledge upon which to base their conclusion, i.e. "we don't X, THEREFORE we should do Y". It's flawed reasoning, since they've assumed a conclusion is true, based ONLY on the absense of evidence itself. That's potentially a fallacy (not always, since they just might end up with the correct (valid) conclusion, via pure dumb luck). Like the old saying goes, "the absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense" (which tacitly assumes that an exhaustive and thorough search has already been conducted, and has come up empty-handed).
As I said above, the 'burden of proof' in inductive proof is low, since it relies on probabilities:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst
Argument from Uncertainty
This is a bit different from Arguing from Ignorance. Arguing from uncertainty occurs when one attempts to use the tentative nature of inductive claims as a reason, in of itself, to reject an inductive claim. Inductive claims are accepted or rejected on a probabilistic basis, as per their evidence.
Consider the following table:
Continuum of Truth
| Absolute truth | Most likely true | Maybe true | Probably false | Defintely False |
| Tautologies | Theory of Gravity | Kant's Categories | "Big Foot" | Contradictions |
Here we can see that whereas mountains of evidence exist to support the notion of gravity, there is but a dearth of evidence to support "Big Foot' Therefore, while both ideas lie along the continuum, they are hardly equitable in truth value. We can reasonably reject Big foot claims, while we can reasonably accept claims about gravity.
3) ALL theodicies rely on the presupposition of a belief in God.
So trying to take God out of the question of theodicy is impossible, since whether God is explicitly stated (as a supposition) or not (as a presupposition), the question of theodicy revolves around a belief in God, in the first place, and trying to EXCUSE the actions of God!
That goes to the valid point Outlaw brought up, a few pages ago (on pg 66):
It`s 66 pages of arguing about something you don`t believe in.. 66 pages about a subject (The existance of God) neither side can prove..
Cofty responded with:
"Nobody is arguing about the existence of god. We are discussing whether christian theism can account for natural evil....."
NOTE the words CHRISTIAN THEISM in Cofty's response, which is a belief system that is BUILT on the existence of God.
So the fly in the ointment of Cofty's approach of challenging Xian theism via attacking theodicies is that the believer already HAS hurdled over the more-problematic BINARY (yes/no) question of accepting a belief in God without demanding evidence, in the first place, and theodocies rest UPON that foundation, and worse, the 'problem of evil' allows for a smorgasborg approach of multiple answers which need only be plausible to accept. If a believer is willing to unskeptically accept the existence of God with no tangible evidence, the horse is already out of the barn....
However, it's relatively easy to prove ANY claim, esp if one is willing to pull a fast one by "stacking the deck" in their favor, and hoping no one else will notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Adam