Evidence Based Theodicy Essay

I strongly disagree that religion and God should not be expected to respond to claims based on evidence. As this discussion question even address, theology generally uses evidence to understand the divine nature. Without evidences, we have no proven claim that the divine nature even exist. For example, if one believes that nature is created by God, without the existence of nature, which is an evidence of that claim, how can that claim be verified? God is unlike human and creation to be questioned physically. It is claim that seeing God leads to instant demise, so then how can God’s existence be verified without the proofs of his works? Christians believe in Jesus Christ, a God made human. This God must have had a family, he must have lived on earth for such

As I previously mentioned, humans are visual and evidence-based individuals. They seek to comprehend to the best of their ability a phenomenon. An evidence-based theodicy allows them the means to do so. It allow room for disagreements, communication and understanding. For example, Roth base his theodicy on history, especially the horrors of the holocaust to make a claim that God is not entirely good, if he allows the occurrence of demise of innocent lives when he has the power to prevent it. His claim although arguable, can be somewhat proven based on history recordings of the holocaust. A theology that is unconcerned with evidence leave much room for interpretations and doubts. Anyone can make a claim, only evidence can solidify that claim. Faith plays a crucial role in a evidence-free theology. Unfortunately, faith can only accomplish so much, before it is replaced by doubts in the face of challenges. Personally, I believe that both evidences and faith can best describe the divine. It is something that can be proven, if you know the right places to find it, but also something that cannot be fully describe by human