Talk:Augustinian theodicy

1082:

different versions and ideas of different philosophers without establishing what it is that makes a theodicy Augustinian. Would it be better if I rename the section 'general form' - that seems to better encapsulate what it is for? I wouldn't want to remove the section because it it establishes the definition of an Augustinian theodicy and identifies the key concepts which continued throughout its development. There is some repetition in the lead, but that is because the lead is summarising the rest of the article. The first paragraph of the lead summarises the outline section; I could not remove the outline section and just have it in the lead, because everything in the lead needs to appear in the rest of the article. Is there anything specific you think I could do to avoid repetition? I get the feeling that changing the heading to 'general form' will deal with a lot of your concerns, because it will better focus the section. Does that sound alright? If there's anything else that you think might need improving, let me know.

1805:, the lead of this article does not fully establish Hick's role in defining this kind of theodicy as Augustinian. Because Hick was not a supporter of the Augustinian theodicy, and thus made no positive contribution to it, he is not included in the development section. However, his role in classifying this kind of theodicy as Augustinian was important. The lead currently follows the structure of the main article (one paragraph per section); the main discussion of Hick's role in classifying the theodicy occurs in the first section. As the lead does not establish Hick's role in classification, there may be a minor hole in its summary of the article; however, the way it was appended to the end of the first sentence wasn't great. Perhaps after the third sentence (which mentions that numerous variations exist) we could add a brief sentence which notes Hick's role in classifying them as Augustinian, and in contrast with Irenaean theodicy? 1488:." That is a redundancy - a theodicy, by definition, is an attempt to address the evidential problem of evil, so we don't need to clarify that we are talking about that meaning of theodicy (there is only one meaning of theodicy, and various different theodicies have been proposed). You do not refer to theodicy with the definite article (and the sources do not) - theodicy is a discipline, just like you wouldn't say "the philosophy", "the physics", or "the astronomy". In the article, the term "theodicy" refers to theodicy; when it discussed "this theodicy" or "the theodicy" it will mean the Augustinian theodicy. If there are any specific bits which are very ambiguous, let me know. 1590:" (ATTN: red link). A good example is it the article: "that natural disasters and disease existed before humans and hence cannot be the result of human sin". I don't know whose rendering of this phrase, but it has at least two logical blunders: first, nobody says that disasters are because of human sin, only evil is because of sin. Second, it is meaningless to talk about evil without a "victim", hence it is meaningless to bring into discusstion something that existed "before humans". Not to say that for any natural event or thing however beneficial it seems at the first glance, one without much difficulty may envision a situation when it becomes a vehicle of evil. 1890:

term must be acknowledged by citation of its source, which has a renewed 2010 copyrighted by the publisher Macmillan Palgrave. This wiki article does not acknowledge this. This is clearly a wiki article about "John H. Hick's 'Augustinian Theodicy'" and should acknowledge it in the title as well. The quotation form with footnote accomplishes this, and the title should be in conformity with the responsible David Griffin example which does not violate copyright.

482: 178: 1703:, not here, and little effort was made at that time to integrate the proposed text in a way that would retain this article's high quality of prose. Consensus can change, though, and it has already. The proposed text is awkward and clumsy, and I don't think it should be fixed or integrated. Rather, I think this phrase should be deleted entirely. It is not necessary: Hick did not invent the concept, he just coined a term to describe it. 22: 430: 354: 327: 515: 227: 442: 237: 206: 1190:, it is supposed to summarise the whole of the article. If the lead was completely different to the rest of the article, it would not even meet Good Article standards, never mind Featured. If there are specific points you can raise with me, I would be more than happy to deal with them, but telling me that it's no good and there's no point trying to improve it it unhelpful and counter-productive. 364: 1167:"Hick distinguished between the Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits for human development. The Augustinian theodicy is distinguished from other forms of theodicy (specifically Irenaean) by its attempt to clear God of any responsibility for evil." 673: 80: 53: 90: 1909:). Where is ItsZippy. He should provide his explanation and this copyright notice should not be removed by anyone but him or until he responds to this issue. The full accreditation of the copyright held by Macmillan Palgrave (2010) is being requested to protect this wiki page against copyright violation. Where is ItsZippy? 1905:

Admin Editor at wiki. His opinion must be essential to the determination of his view on proper accrediting of this wikipage to John H. Hick. ItsZippy and myself are the only two persons who have apparently studied this book by JHick and his opinion is essential here as the principal author of this wikipage. (Preview:

1496:" article, this term may have other meanings, while "God vs. evil" is the most common one. And this is exaclly what I wrote here, namely, the AugThe article uses the term "theodicy" in this most common meaning, so there is no redundancy at all, just elimination of (small) chance of misutnderstanding. 1518:

Scientifically derived critique mean critique derived from facts of science. That heading was called scientific criticisms a little while ago (before the first FAC, I think), but someone pointed out that this implies that science is criticising the theory. The criticisms are not made by science, they

1415:

re: "Scientifically derived critique" - This expression is impressive, but extremely ambiguuos. Therefore I tried to remove it. Since you reverted it, please explain what this title intended to mean, so that we may look for a better term. (If you fail to see the problem with the term, "scientifically

1398:

Re: "theodicy". Again, disagreed with your revert. My intention was to clearly define the term "theodicy" throughout the whole article. Your version applies this meaning only to the term "Augustinian theodicy". Unless you prove that the term "theodicy is used in other meanings in the article, my edit

1111:

Sorry, colleague, whatever you say to defent the current layout, it does not change the fact that the top part of the artcle is heavy with repetitions and slight variations. It is OK when a preacher repeats "God is Good" every third sentence, but reading the current article as part of encyclopedia is

1085:

I do agree with you that the whole topic of theodicy needs improvement; still, I don't think that means that this should not be brought to FA. I do intend to improve any of the articles in this area, but I thought it would be helpful to bring this to FA. Also, bringing this to FA will mean that there

1132:

A different problem: is there such thing as "Calvinist theodicy" or Calvinist one may be described as a form of AugThe or it is not. It is not clearly stated in the text. Again, regardless your answer I will demonstrate a yet another problem with the article. I may continue this nitpicking, and I am

907:

Hi Cerebellum, thanks for your review. I've just gone through the article addressing the concerns you made (as well as other minor improvements. If there is anything I have missed, please let me know. I'm leaving the sources as they are for now because, as you said, they're not being used to support

1461:

P.S. I lloked around a bit and it seems to me that the term "probability" is indeed used, but only as an opposition to the term "certainty", with respect to the existence of God (in particular, with all "omni-" qualities. THerefore I am still dubious in this respect. I think, wikipedia must discuss

1286:

I am as specific as possible given that the text is not crystal clear logically. I see you made some changes, which do address some of my concerns. But I am not done yet, since I have to do it step-by-step, following your clarifications of ambiguities. Please keep in mind I am not a theologist (and

1199:

There is no 'Calvinist theodicy', in the same way that there is an 'Augustinian theodicy'; Calvin's theodicy has been cast as Augustinian, which is why it is in there. I see you removed the main tag, which pointed to Calvinism - that's probably a good idea, thanks. Before coming to FAC, I cut a lot

1116:

Question: a number of variations of what? Please answer, and regardless your answer there be a different problem with the subsequent text. (If you don't see it now, I suspect you just refuse to accept that it exists or it degrades readability and therefore you refuse to re-read the text critically.

1003:

After skimming glance I see the intro and the first section, "Outline" heavily overlap. They overlap in content. They overlap formally; since the intro/lede section is a kind of an outline of a wikipedia article, then what is the purpose of "Outline"? IMO the two must be merged and say something as

936:

The last paragraph of the Augustine section mentions his belief in forgiveness due to Jesus. This is referenced, but unreliably. I've spent the past hour looking for more reliable references, but can find nothing; however, I am reluctant to remove it from the article, as I think it did form part of

773:

Wow, I am very impressed with this article! You started from scratch and have definitely come a long way. The lead, in particular, is exemplary - everything in the article body is in the lead. I've got a few nitpicks, so I'm placing this review on hold for now, but I'll probably pass the article

1904:

There is no exception granted for copyright violation of even two words if they are not credited to the publisher and holder of the copyright. They are reused throughout this wikipage and are endemic to its content. Where is ItsZippy? He is the principal author of this text and currently an active

1889:

The present article is a violation of the 2010 copyright renewed by Macmillan Palgrave for this book authored by Hick. The material is not properly acknowledged in both the title and in the first sentence of this article for fair use. The standard for copyright is that the first use of an original

1882:

The unauthorized use of two words, or other short phrases, does constitute copyright violation when they are used repeatedly and when they are taken from a book which is copyrighted to protect the originality of the author in using the two words in an original and innovative form. The standard for

1081:

Hi Staszek Lem, thanks for your feedback. I included the outline section to give an overview of the ideas and concepts involved in the theodicy before going into its history. Without the outline section, the article would just straight into the developments of the theodicy and start discussing the

1491:

Once again, I am trying to start ensure the overall consistency of wikipedia. (Lack thereof in this area was my first complaint, if you remember; and making FA of some page when the cornerstone articles in the area are poor is wrong aproach IMO, but of course we are volunteers here and do what we

1695:

The main problem with the lengthened version is that it gives the impression that John Hick was the first to identify the evidential problem of evil, which is not the case. More than that, it introduces John Hick without any context. Hick is already present in the lead section and he is properly

1585:

Further, I have read a bit of scientific criticism, and in many cases it strikes me as naive. It seems that people with moern scientific worldview fail to grasp metaphysical concepts (more precisely, the depth of these concepts), oversimplify or misinterpret them, and as a result their criticism

1347:

Thank you for being specific; I appreciate that you are not a philosopher or theologian, though it is worth noting that I would not expect someone with absolutely no no understanding of philosophy to be reading this - the audience is someone with a basic understanding of philosophy. The sentence

1557:

I see your point and, while I believe that the current heading is better than the old one, it could be improved as you say. How about 'Inconsistencies with scientific knowledge' - that suggests that the theodicy doesn't fit with scientific knowledge, but does not suggest that the criticisms are

1089:

Anyway, does my proposal to change the heading of the outline section seem sufficient to you. As I said, I am not sure that removing or merging it with the lead would be helpful. If you have specific instances of unnecessary repetition that you think I could deal with, I'm certainly willing to

1439:

probable. I know the theodicy article does not use the word 'probable', but it should - I am working on the article at the moment (which is a a considerably lower standard that this one) and, when I get to it, will make that distinction. If we remove "probability" and mention "possibility" or

1434:

Probability is the correct term. A theodicy is an argument that tries to show that, despite evidence of evil in the world, it is still probable that God exists. It can be compared to a defence, which tries to show that, despite evidence of evil in the world, God's existence remains logically

1225:-- well, at least there is "Calvin's theodicy" = "Calvin said about the problem of evil" (I assume what he said was theodicy, i.e. elimination of "God vs. evil" contradiction. But I may understand that Calvinism as a whole does not have a clearly delineated, separate "school" of theodicy. 1169:

Anther problem with this piece is the first sentence is of unclear antagonism: "Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil" That is the opposition here? I.e. why both free will and bad God cannot go together?

1243:- If it is so, then the article has a contradiction: the section "General form" says, in part, that by AugTheo "God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence", whereas the Calvin's section says: "was willing to accept that God is responsible for evil " 838:

Citation 18 is a little sketchy. It's good enough for me because it's hosted on a university website and the claims it's being used to back up are not extraordinary, but if you tried to take this to FA it might be a problem, since we don't know who wrote it. Can it be

1623:

You are right - some of those criticisms are poor (I wouldn't completely disregard them, though). Nevertheless, that is what the sources have presented - I'm not going to change what's written and misrepresent the source just because I don't agree some aspects of it.

1942:". A two-word phrase is simply too small to attract individual copyright protection, because it's below the threshhold of originality. Meanwhile, an article that concentrates on a specific piece of nonfree copyrighted content may include that content under the " 866:

When you say that Aquinas recognizes evil, do you mean that he recognizes it as having an independent existence? That would seem to contradict the part where you say he agreed that evil was a privation, not an independent entity. Could you

1133:

more and more convinced that while superficially the article looks good, any deeper reading shows problems which prevent me from concluding that the article is a very good source of wisdom on the subject (ie it is GA, but not FA for me).

1647:

I edited the last two paragraphs of the lead to better match them to, and enable them to summarize, the contents of the main body of the article. I did not notice the article was featured at the time, so, if I cocked it up, I apologize.

1532:

and derives all kind of nonsense from it. Surely you would not call his exploits "scientifically derived". Therefore a more correct term would be "Criticism based on scientific approach" or "Criticism from the scientific point of view"

855:

I don't understand this sentence, probably because I don't know about Manichaeism. Perhaps you could explain how this was in contrast with his earlier ideas or give an example of a non-physical substance. (I've added a link to

1200:

out of the Calvin section - it did have a more detailed description of Calvinism - now it contains only what Calvin said about the problem of evil. If you have any specific suggestions about this section, I am happy to listen.

965:

Literally, this appears to say that, when humans do evil, they are punished by giving them free will. I imagine there do exist people who view free will as a curse, but I wouldn't have expected Augustine to be one of them.

1718:

As I've said elsewhere, I think Binksternet's version of the lead sentence is clearer. John Hick is covered in plenty of detail later on in the lead; I don't think we need to specifically mention him in the first sentence.

2252: 1112:

boring and confusing. Because of this repetitiveness you even don't see other stylistic problems, because the eye just skims and the brain says 'yeah, yeah', I've just read this a millisecond ago'. One example.

633: 614: 496: 1519:

are made by philosophers who have derived them from facts of science. If you can suggest a better alternative then I'll use that, but scientific criticisms or scientific critique conveys the wrong message.

1952:, for example, which includes a nonfree copyrighted image. Even if the phrase were copyrighted, we could talk about the phrase and its meaning because of the protection granted by the fair use doctrine. 1871:

The use of the two words "Augustinian theodicy" is not a copyright violation. Is there specific text that you believe violates the copyright of the text in that book? If not, then there is no issue. –

1528:

Disagreed. "Scientifically derived" means "derived how? - in a scientific way". "Derived from science" may be in a non-scientific way. In fact the latter happens quite often: some kook takes, e.g.,

2247: 807:

The Augustinian theodicy is a theodicy, a response to the problem of evil. As such, it justifies the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God in the face of evil and suffering in the world.

2135:

per those above. I have never heard the phrase "Augustine theodicy", and it doesn't appear on the first few pages (at least) of Google Scholar. "Augustinian theodicy" is the usual name in English.

870:

Did Calvin really say that humans can't control whether they covet or not? In any case, you need to show how the first paragraph on Calvin relates to the topic of the Augustinian theodicy.

1906: 1851: 2187: 1066:, etc. I am poking around and see the topic is covered in a rather chaotic way, and a single FA is not enough. On the other hand, it might be an important brick into this building. 2227: 460: 1289:

Therefore your job in the dialog with me is not to prove that I am wrong or stupid, but to make sure that I understand your article correctly; at least according ro your intentions

1207:- Please write so explicitely in the article (it is in section titled "Development" which term is not synymous with "Of Augustinian Type") and provide the reference who says so. 1277:

If you have any more specific criticisms that you think needs resolving, please let me know (it is helpful if you are specific though, otherwise I cannot make any improvements).

1287:

not even a militant atheist :-), so my reading of the text is that of an ignoramus willing to understand the issue. In other words, I am a "customer" rather than an "opponent".

1044:

P.S. Not to say that the efforts of ItsZippy are commendable, instaed of a single FA I'd rather prefer to see the complete ordering/syncing/systematixation of the whole topic:

678: 1484:

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to achieve with the theodicy edit. You added "In this article the term "theodicy" is used in its most common meaning of addressing the

2232: 2192: 1380:

re: "probability" - disagreed with your interpratation. Most probably you are confusing the terms "probability" and "possibility". The latter term I see used in the article "

595: 557: 1313:

Here, does the definite article "the" means "this theodicy, i.e., AugThe", or does it mean "theodicy as a specific kind of discourse" i.e., "all theodicies in general" ?

2182: 521: 1265:

It doesn't have an importance; if someone wants to add one that may. Anyway, an importance rating is independent of FAC, and should have no bearing on the outcome, per

2222: 111:

on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

1850:

Copyright violation is posted for protection of publisher. Copyright was renerwed in 2010 by Macmillan Palgrave for protection of material in the book. Url is given

1357:

Disagreed. The only thing I need is good understanding of logic and reasonsing. The rest of philosophy must be "clicable through" -- that's the intent of wikipedia.

711: 2050:

in reliable sources this is called "Augustinian theodicy" or "Augustine's theodicy" (less common). The name is not ambiguous because it only refers to one thing.

2003: 973:

is that the intention here is something like "the fact that humans do evil freely, justifies their punishment", but I'm not really sure. Can someone fix this? --

2217: 1699:

There was a tangential (and fleeting) consensus about the phrase "as first identified by John Hick in 1966", but the consensus was reached at the talk page for

420: 410: 1440:"absence of contradiction", we will actively contradict all of the relevant sources - everything that talks about what a theodicy is talks about probability. 701: 2177: 455: 337: 148: 138: 2237: 2202: 683: 309: 299: 263: 185: 63: 1907:

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380551005&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hick+evil

1852:

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380551005&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hick+evil

2212: 386: 1114:"A number of variations have been proposed throughout history, but they typically assert that God is perfectly good, that he created the worl... 2207: 805:

The first paragraph seems a tad redundant - aren't all theodicies designed to respond to the problem of evil? Maybe change to something like

2257: 2172: 1086:

is already easily accessible information and sources available in this article that other editors or I could transfer into a related article.

113: 853:

Augustine was influenced by Plato and his followers; it was as a result of this that he was able to first consider a non-physical substance.

2242: 1656: 896: 271: 1272:

I have changed the first sentence there so that the comparison is fairer, and have removed the second which, as you said, was superfluous.

1987:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2197: 1910: 1891: 1857: 377: 332: 1008:

The AuTh is a type of Th named after StTh by ..., who first identified it as a special type of Th, along with other type(s) thereof.

794:

You may want to include a "part of a series on" template below Augustine's picture to help readers find related articles. Maybe

750: 267: 103: 58: 881: 706: 275: 251: 211: 2032:– "Augustinian" supposedly only refers to the religious order, "Augustine theodicy" is the preferred Knowledge convention. 2157:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2122: 1754:

The only difference is that the FA version has no comma, and no recent addition. I think the no-comma version is optimal.

1030:

Alternatively, the intro may be shortened to 1-2 sentences and "Outline" expanded according to my outline of the outline.

729: 576: 2062: 1856:

Similar protection is sought for the title of this wikipage which should read "John H. Hick's 'Augustinian Theodicy'".

447: 33: 491: 1571:

Actually, the second paragraph is about reconciliation with sci POV. How about "Critique from scientific positions"?

1745: 1684: 1485: 1670:

Several times now I have removed a new addition from the first sentence, removing the phrase shown below in red:

1978: 1939: 1186:

Thanks for your feedback. Firstly, the lead will repeat what is said later in the article because, according to

2118: 481: 21: 815:, you don't really need to use citations in the lead, especially for something basic like Augustine's works. 1914: 1895: 1861: 1700: 725: 960:

of humans is generally regarded as the reason for evil, as well as being a just punishment for this evil.

514: 2097: 2029: 1988: 1929: 1820: 1759: 1708: 1595: 1576: 1538: 1501: 1467: 1452: 1421: 1404: 1389: 1362: 1332: 1318: 1296: 1248: 1230: 1212: 1175: 1154: 1138: 1122: 1071: 1035: 501: 39: 2113: 1587: 1099:

I have changed 'outline' to 'general form' as a result of the above discussion (I like it better too).

988:

Oh thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I've rewritten & clarified what was a horrible sentence of mine.

1591: 1572: 1534: 1497: 1463: 1462:

the ramfications of the "certainty"/"probability"/"possibility"/"impossibility" spectrum in theology.

1448: 1417: 1400: 1385: 1358: 1328: 1314: 1292: 1244: 1226: 1208: 1171: 1150: 1134: 1118: 1067: 1031: 2025: 1815:

I support your interest in making the lead section show more plainly that Hick classified the topic.

922: 779: 764: 744: 2140: 2093: 2037: 2012: 1991:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1649: 978: 369: 1435:

possible. A theodicy is difference from a defence because a theodicy asserts that God's existence

385:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2077: 1416:

derived" means "derived in a scientific way" and not "derived from the scientific worldview").

812: 895:

Try to introduce links to this article in other articles. For example, you could probably link

842:

Again, this isn't a problem at the GA level, but what makes philosophyonline a reliable source?

2109: 2085: 2076:. "Augustinian" does indeed refer to an order, but it is also the standard adjectival form of 1957: 1884: 1802: 885: 505: 95: 1327:

Now that you changed "the" to this, why don't you see a repetition in the lead come glaring?

2057: 1925: 1816: 1755: 1704: 857: 1948: 1529: 1443:

You have to demonstrate this language with references to sources. If you are saying that "

1049: 918: 889: 799: 775: 760: 740: 242: 2081: 908:

anything controversial. I will, however, try to improve all the sources at a later date.

1558:

deduced from scientific experiments (as the current one does). Does that sound alright?

2136: 2033: 2008: 1266: 1187: 974: 177: 2166: 2116:. What is your basis for saying "and 'Augustine' is the preferred Knowledge term"? — 2101: 1838: 1806: 1777: 1720: 1625: 1559: 1520: 1349: 1278: 1100: 1091: 1058: 989: 938: 909: 880:

You may want to include at navigation template at the bottom of the article, such as

2105: 2089: 1953: 1872: 1792: 1689: 1053: 795: 429: 382: 1735: 1674: 2052: 1791:

I'm going to have to agree with ItsZippy here. Binksternet's version is best. –

2144: 2127: 2068: 2041: 2016: 1961: 1933: 1918: 1899: 1883:

reference is colloborated by David Griffin in his essay provided in this link.

1875: 1865: 1841: 1824: 1809: 1795: 1780: 1763: 1723: 1712: 1660: 1628: 1599: 1580: 1562: 1542: 1523: 1505: 1471: 1456: 1425: 1408: 1393: 1384:", and my edit was towards the "possibility", i.e., absence of contradiction. 1366: 1352: 1336: 1322: 1300: 1281: 1252: 1234: 1216: 1179: 1158: 1142: 1126: 1103: 1094: 1075: 1039: 992: 982: 941: 926: 912: 783: 768: 754: 441: 236: 437: 359: 353: 326: 232: 108: 85: 937:

Augustine's belief. Does anyone know of any references that might help here?

863:

Maybe include a phrase saying who Tomas Aquinas is, like you have for Calvin.

1063: 957: 835:

Citation 19 seems to be missing the "author" field in the citation template.

363: 226: 205: 732:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 262:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1943: 1741: 1680: 1493: 1444: 1381: 1193:

As for the specific points you do raise, I have dealt with all of those:

1045: 900: 258: 107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 1776:

Yep - the comma is unnecessary as it's all part of the same clause.

79: 52: 15: 1837:- feel free to make changes, or let me know what you think. 1492:

want). And my point was that according to the definition in "

1348:

refers to this specific theodicy, and I have clarified that.

428: 176: 1885:

http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffincritiquehicktheodicy.htm

2253:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once

1620:

Changed heading to 'critique from a scientific position'.

1834: 626: 607: 588: 569: 550: 2248:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page

1196:

I have specified what the variations are in the lead.

1149:

BTW, it has no "impostance" rating from WP:Religion.

381:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 819:

can seem to be more than just a lacking of goodness

159: 888:. You can use more than one if you want, like at 520:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as 1938:Please read our article on the concept of the " 917:Excellent, I am happy to pass this article. -- 774:whether you choose to address these or not. -- 256:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 2188:Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles 1014:The early major contrbutors to AuTh are: ..... 2228:Mid-importance Reformed Christianity articles 1117:In this case I am wasting my and your time.) 8: 759:Hello! I will be reviewing this article. -- 504:. Even so, if you can update or improve it, 500:as one of the best articles produced by the 494:; it (or a previous version of it) has been 1801:The only problem I can see is that, unlike 1732:Note that the FA version reads as follows: 2233:WikiProject Reformed Christianity articles 2193:Philosophy of religion task force articles 1977:The following is a closed discussion of a 1399:was correct clarification of terminology. 1311:A number of variations of the theodicy ... 661: 529: 476: 321: 200: 156: 47: 2100:is not called "Shakespeare tragedy", the 1690:as first identified by John Hick in 1966. 2183:FA-Class philosophy of religion articles 19: 2223:FA-Class Reformed Christianity articles 1090:improve them - do let me know. Thanks. 692: 664: 323: 202: 49: 2104:is not called the "Victoria era", and 1447:" article is wrong, I have no comment 1291:. All said, the next iteration comes. 117:about philosophy content on Knowledge. 1666:Poor quality change to first sentence 860:- is that what you are referring to?) 823:is more than just a lack of goodness, 7: 2218:Mid-importance Christianity articles 2108:is not called "David line". Compare 2000:consensus against the proposed move 1996:The result of the move request was: 375:This article is within the scope of 248:This article is within the scope of 101:This article is within the scope of 1165:Here yet another repetitive piece: 897:Alvin Plantinga's free will defense 38:It is of interest to the following 2178:Mid-importance Philosophy articles 395:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity 14: 2238:WikiProject Christianity articles 2153:The discussion above is closed. 1223:There is no "Calvinist theodicy" 456:WikiProject Reformed Christianity 398:Template:WikiProject Christianity 2203:Low-importance Religion articles 1011:<The essence of the AuTh: --> 513: 480: 440: 362: 352: 325: 235: 225: 204: 123:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 88: 78: 51: 20: 882:Template:Philosophy of religion 802:is an example of it being used. 415:This article has been rated as 304:This article has been rated as 143:This article has been rated as 126:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 2213:FA-Class Christianity articles 2004:closed by non-admin page mover 1900:20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 1876:15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 1866:14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 1842:16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 1825:13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 1810:11:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 1796:21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1781:21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1764:20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1724:20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1713:19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 284:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 2208:WikiProject Religion articles 2096:. Oppose for the same reason 1683:, designed to respond to the 1629:14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 1600:00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 1586:smacks of easily defeatable " 1581:00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 1563:11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 1543:22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1524:19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1506:22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1472:23:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1457:22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1426:19:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1409:18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1394:18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1367:18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1353:18:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1337:18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1323:18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1301:18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1282:15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1253:18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1235:18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1217:18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1180:03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1159:03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1143:03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1127:03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1104:14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 1023:(optional) In modern times... 730:Talk:Augustinian theodicy/GA1 453:This article is supported by 389:and see a list of open tasks. 287:Template:WikiProject Religion 2258:Old requests for peer review 2173:FA-Class Philosophy articles 942:19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 927:23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 913:20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 784:11:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 769:09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 755:09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 448:Reformed Christianity portal 2243:Knowledge featured articles 1962:22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 1934:19:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 1919:18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 1744:designed to respond to the 1661:10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 1095:13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1076:00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1040:23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 2274: 2198:FA-Class Religion articles 1746:evidential problem of evil 1685:evidential problem of evil 1486:evidential problem of evil 993:15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 983:05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 947:Free will is a punishment? 634:Featured article candidate 615:Featured article candidate 421:project's importance scale 310:project's importance scale 149:project's importance scale 1970:Requested move 9 May 2020 1940:threshhold of originality 643: 532: 528: 436: 414: 347: 303: 220: 184: 155: 142: 73: 46: 2155:Please do not modify it. 2017:11:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1984:Please do not modify it. 522:Today's featured article 378:WikiProject Christianity 274:standards, or visit the 2145:10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 2128:03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 2069:02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 2042:01:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 1740:is a type of Christian 1679:is a type of Christian 1020:It was cricitized by... 160:Associated task forces: 2112:, which is not called 1017:It unfluenced the .... 433: 186:Philosophy of religion 181: 104:WikiProject Philosophy 28:This article is rated 2098:Shakespearean tragedy 2080:'s name, as given in 1309:I see you rephrased: 999:Repetitiveness on top 432: 401:Christianity articles 338:Reformed Christianity 180: 2026:Augustinian theodicy 1738:Augustinian theodicy 1677:Augustinian theodicy 821:could be changed to 577:Good article nominee 488:Augustinian theodicy 252:WikiProject Religion 2119:the Man in Question 1241:cast as Augustinian 1205:cast as Augustinian 932:Augustine and Jesus 502:Knowledge community 370:Christianity portal 129:Philosophy articles 2030:Augustine theodicy 627:September 20, 2012 551:September 16, 2011 533:Article milestones 434: 264:assess and improve 182: 114:general discussion 34:content assessment 2125: 2114:Irenaeus theodicy 2110:Irenaean theodicy 2086:American Heritage 2007: 1944:fair use doctrine 1803:Irenaean theodicy 1701:Irenaean theodicy 1588:naive materialism 886:Template:Theology 720: 719: 655: 654: 651: 650: 589:February 14, 2012 524:on June 16, 2015. 475: 474: 471: 470: 467: 466: 320: 319: 316: 315: 290:Religion articles 278:for more details. 199: 198: 195: 194: 191: 190: 96:Philosophy portal 2265: 2123: 2121: 2067: 2001: 1986: 1749: 1691: 1688: 1643:Edit to the lead 858:substance theory 674:Copyvio detector 662: 646:Featured article 644:Current status: 629: 610: 591: 572: 570:December 1, 2011 553: 530: 517: 492:featured article 484: 477: 450: 445: 444: 403: 402: 399: 396: 393: 372: 367: 366: 356: 349: 348: 343: 340: 329: 322: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 276:wikiproject page 245: 240: 239: 229: 222: 221: 216: 208: 201: 167: 157: 131: 130: 127: 124: 121: 98: 93: 92: 91: 82: 75: 74: 69: 66: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2117: 2082:Merriam–Webster 2051: 1982: 1972: 1949:The Falling Man 1833:I've done that 1668: 1659: 1652:John Chrysostom 1645: 1530:quantum physics 1050:problem of evil 1001: 949: 934: 890:Problem of evil 877: 849: 832: 800:Problem of evil 791: 724:This review is 716: 688: 660: 625: 606: 587: 568: 549: 446: 439: 400: 397: 394: 391: 390: 368: 361: 341: 335: 289: 286: 283: 280: 279: 243:Religion portal 241: 234: 214: 165: 128: 125: 122: 119: 118: 94: 89: 87: 67: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 2271: 2269: 2261: 2260: 2255: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2210: 2205: 2200: 2195: 2190: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2130: 2071: 2022: 2020: 1994: 1993: 1979:requested move 1973: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1881: 1879: 1878: 1849: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1828: 1827: 1799: 1798: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1727: 1726: 1693: 1692: 1667: 1664: 1655: 1644: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1621: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1583: 1566: 1565: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1459: 1429: 1428: 1412: 1411: 1396: 1376: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1237: 1219: 1197: 1191: 1183: 1182: 1162: 1161: 1146: 1145: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1087: 1083: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1000: 997: 996: 995: 963: 962: 948: 945: 933: 930: 905: 904: 893: 876: 873: 872: 871: 868: 864: 861: 848: 845: 844: 843: 840: 836: 831: 828: 827: 826: 816: 809: 803: 790: 787: 735: 734: 718: 717: 715: 714: 709: 704: 698: 695: 694: 690: 689: 687: 686: 684:External links 681: 676: 670: 667: 666: 659: 656: 653: 652: 649: 648: 641: 640: 637: 630: 622: 621: 618: 611: 608:April 25, 2012 603: 602: 599: 592: 584: 583: 580: 573: 565: 564: 561: 554: 546: 545: 542: 539: 535: 534: 526: 525: 518: 510: 509: 485: 473: 472: 469: 468: 465: 464: 461:Mid-importance 452: 451: 435: 425: 424: 417:Mid-importance 413: 407: 406: 404: 387:the discussion 374: 373: 357: 345: 344: 342:Mid‑importance 330: 318: 317: 314: 313: 306:Low-importance 302: 296: 295: 293: 247: 246: 230: 218: 217: 215:Low‑importance 209: 197: 196: 193: 192: 189: 188: 183: 173: 172: 170: 168: 162: 161: 153: 152: 145:Mid-importance 141: 135: 134: 132: 100: 99: 83: 71: 70: 68:Mid‑importance 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2270: 2259: 2256: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2201: 2199: 2196: 2194: 2191: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2168: 2158: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2126: 2124:(in question) 2120: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102:Victorian era 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2005: 1999: 1992: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1969: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1887: 1886: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1665: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1642: 1630: 1627: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1584: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1490: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1115: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059:privatio boni 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 998: 994: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 967: 961: 959: 954: 953: 952: 951:Article sez: 946: 944: 943: 940: 931: 929: 928: 924: 920: 915: 914: 911: 902: 898: 894: 891: 887: 883: 879: 878: 874: 869: 865: 862: 859: 854: 851: 850: 846: 841: 837: 834: 833: 830:Verifiability 829: 824: 820: 817: 814: 810: 808: 804: 801: 797: 793: 792: 788: 786: 785: 781: 777: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 756: 752: 749: 746: 742: 739: 733: 731: 727: 722: 721: 713: 710: 708: 705: 703: 700: 699: 697: 696: 691: 685: 682: 680: 677: 675: 672: 671: 669: 668: 663: 657: 647: 642: 638: 636: 635: 631: 628: 624: 623: 619: 617: 616: 612: 609: 605: 604: 600: 598: 597: 593: 590: 586: 585: 581: 579: 578: 574: 571: 567: 566: 562: 560: 559: 555: 552: 548: 547: 543: 540: 537: 536: 531: 527: 523: 519: 516: 512: 511: 507: 503: 499: 498: 493: 489: 486: 483: 479: 478: 462: 459:(assessed as 458: 457: 449: 443: 438: 431: 427: 426: 422: 418: 412: 409: 408: 405: 388: 384: 380: 379: 371: 365: 360: 358: 355: 351: 350: 346: 339: 334: 331: 328: 324: 311: 307: 301: 298: 297: 294: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 260: 255: 254: 253: 244: 238: 233: 231: 228: 224: 223: 219: 213: 210: 207: 203: 187: 179: 175: 174: 171: 169: 164: 163: 158: 154: 150: 146: 140: 137: 136: 133: 116: 115: 110: 106: 105: 97: 86: 84: 81: 77: 76: 72: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2154: 2152: 2137:Josh Milburn 2132: 2106:Davidic line 2073: 2063: 2058: 2053: 2047: 2024: 2021: 1997: 1995: 1983: 1976: 1947: 1911:209.3.238.61 1903: 1892:209.3.238.61 1888: 1880: 1858:209.3.238.61 1855: 1848: 1800: 1737: 1698: 1696:introduced. 1694: 1676: 1669: 1651: 1646: 1436: 1375: 1310: 1288: 1267:the criteria 1240: 1222: 1204: 1166: 1113: 1110: 1057: 1054:natural evil 1043: 1029: 1002: 970: 968: 964: 955: 950: 935: 916: 906: 852: 825:for brevity. 822: 818: 806: 796:Template:God 772: 758: 747: 737: 736: 723: 712:Instructions 645: 632: 620:Not promoted 613: 594: 575: 556: 506:please do so 495: 487: 454: 416: 392:Christianity 383:Christianity 376: 333:Christianity 305: 266:articles to 257: 250: 249: 144: 112: 102: 40:WikiProjects 1989:move review 1926:Binksternet 1817:Binksternet 1756:Binksternet 1705:Binksternet 1592:Staszek Lem 1573:Staszek Lem 1535:Staszek Lem 1498:Staszek Lem 1464:Staszek Lem 1449:Staszek Lem 1418:Staszek Lem 1401:Staszek Lem 1386:Staszek Lem 1359:Staszek Lem 1329:Staszek Lem 1315:Staszek Lem 1293:Staszek Lem 1245:Staszek Lem 1227:Staszek Lem 1209:Staszek Lem 1172:Staszek Lem 1151:Staszek Lem 1135:Staszek Lem 1119:Staszek Lem 1068:Staszek Lem 1032:Staszek Lem 813:WP:LEDECITE 726:transcluded 596:Peer review 558:Peer review 2167:Categories 1924:Nonsense. 919:Cerebellum 776:Cerebellum 761:Cerebellum 741:Cerebellum 679:Authorship 665:GA toolbox 497:identified 120:Philosophy 109:philosophy 59:Philosophy 2078:Augustine 2034:Elizium23 2009:DannyS712 1998:Not moved 1064:privation 1004:follows: 975:Trovatore 958:free will 839:replaced? 738:Reviewer: 702:Templates 693:Reviewing 658:GA Review 1839:ItsZippy 1807:ItsZippy 1778:ItsZippy 1742:theodicy 1721:ItsZippy 1681:theodicy 1626:ItsZippy 1560:ItsZippy 1521:ItsZippy 1494:theodicy 1445:theodicy 1382:theodicy 1350:ItsZippy 1279:ItsZippy 1101:ItsZippy 1092:ItsZippy 1046:theodicy 990:ItsZippy 939:ItsZippy 910:ItsZippy 903:to this. 901:Theodicy 867:clarify? 751:contribs 707:Criteria 639:Promoted 601:Reviewed 563:Reviewed 281:Religion 259:Religion 212:Religion 64:Religion 30:FA-class 2094:Collins 1954:Nyttend 1946:"; see 1873:Quadell 1793:Quadell 1239:2nd re 1188:WP:LEAD 541:Process 419:on the 308:on the 147:on the 2133:Oppose 2092:, and 2090:Oxford 2074:Oppose 2048:Oppose 582:Listed 544:Result 36:scale. 971:guess 875:Other 847:Prose 728:from 490:is a 2141:talk 2059:uidh 2038:talk 2013:talk 1958:talk 1930:talk 1915:talk 1896:talk 1862:talk 1835:here 1821:talk 1760:talk 1736:The 1709:talk 1675:The 1596:talk 1577:talk 1539:talk 1502:talk 1468:talk 1453:talk 1422:talk 1405:talk 1390:talk 1363:talk 1333:talk 1319:talk 1297:talk 1249:talk 1231:talk 1221:re: 1213:talk 1203:re: 1176:talk 1155:talk 1139:talk 1123:talk 1072:talk 1036:talk 1026:etc. 979:talk 956:The 923:talk 899:and 811:Per 789:Lead 780:talk 765:talk 745:talk 538:Date 270:and 268:good 1650:St 969:My 884:or 798:? 411:Mid 300:Low 272:1.0 139:Mid 2169:: 2143:) 2088:, 2084:, 2040:) 2028:→ 2015:) 1981:. 1960:) 1932:) 1917:) 1898:) 1864:) 1823:) 1762:) 1711:) 1657:τω 1598:) 1579:) 1541:) 1504:) 1470:) 1455:) 1437:is 1424:) 1407:) 1392:) 1365:) 1335:) 1321:) 1299:) 1251:) 1233:) 1215:) 1178:) 1157:) 1141:) 1125:) 1074:) 1062:, 1056:, 1052:, 1048:, 1038:) 981:) 925:) 782:) 767:) 753:) 463:). 336:: 166:/ 62:: 2139:( 2064:e 2054:b 2036:( 2011:( 2006:) 2002:( 1956:( 1928:( 1913:( 1894:( 1860:( 1819:( 1758:( 1748:. 1707:( 1687:, 1594:( 1575:( 1537:( 1500:( 1466:( 1451:( 1420:( 1403:( 1388:( 1361:( 1331:( 1317:( 1295:( 1269:. 1247:( 1229:( 1211:( 1174:( 1153:( 1137:( 1121:( 1070:( 1034:( 977:( 921:( 892:. 778:( 763:( 748:· 743:( 508:. 423:. 312:. 151:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index