Theodicy

Just subscribed to Skeptic magazine. Michael Shermer kicks ass.

So I was reading the eSkeptic (Skeptic's internet newsletter), they have a good piece on Evolution v. Creationism right now. I came up on term that describes a concept that I think about a lot:
Theodicy (n) : A justification of a deity, or the attributes of a deity, especially in regard to the existence of evil and suffering in the world; a work or discourse justifying the ways of God.

So a Theodicy is a treatise attempting to explain how God can be infinitely good and still allow evil to exist. I need to define evil. For the purposes of this argument, evil is a human knowing that they are suffering. By “suffering” I mean experiencing pain (emotional, mental or physical) at a level above what the individual can stand. There are many interpretations, but pain that occurs by lifting weights or getting paid to do manual labor is not suffering. If you experience pain doing manual labor then don’t get paid, that’s suffering. This is very much subject to interpretation, but I think you get the idea.

I’ll put down some premises here to refute with what I think are the three basic approaches to Theodicy.
Premises of a Benevolent God:
1. Evil exists on earth.
2. God is infinitely good.
3. God influences human actions on earth in favor of good.

One of these must be false or there is contradiction, and if so, then how can God be Benevolent?

1. The Calvanism approach:
Premise number one is false, evil does not exist on earth. What we see as suffering is actually God inflicting necessary amounts of pain in favor of a greater good.

An example cited in Wikipedia is Genesis 50, verses 15-20. This is after Jacob gives his son, Joseph, a coat of many colors. Joseph's brothers become jealous and sell him into slavery in Egypt. Joseph manages to free himself from slavery and become an advisor to the Pharaoh, so is able to return to his birthplace, where Jacob has died. Verses 15-20 detail Jacob telling his sons that Joseph will want to visit the same evil on them that they did on him. When Joseph hears what his father said, he responds with tears in his eyes, "ye devised against me evil -- God devised it for good, in order to do as [at] this day, to keep alive a numerous people".
In other words, God allowed Joseph's brothers to treat him so poorly so that he might go to Egypt and help people. This is very Calvanistic and is akin to phrases that which we hear from Jesus-people, such as "No matter what happens, God has a plan for you." Which implies that anything evil that seems to be occurring will create a greater good later on. Requires faith.
Other theories that fit in here are Karma, Modified Dualism, or the idea that pleasure awaits us in the afterlife.
So this theory states that no matter how much evil you think you see, God has always hidden more good around the corner. Sounds like promising an invisible set of fine clothes to me.

2. Maltheism
Premise number two is false, God is not infinitely good. God is either not good enough or not omniscient enough to remove all evil from the world.

This assumes that while God does exist, God is either not benevolent or not omnipotent. This seems to fit with a Pantheon idea a little better. Ancient Greeks didn't assume all cosmic forces were benevolent; in fact some of their gods were downright mean. Also, they didn't assume an overarching power that ruled everything for the benefit of humans alone. If things didn't go your way, it wasn't because Zeus didn’t care about you, but that Ares was trying to sneak some lightning AGAIN and the Big Guy didn't have time for your peasant ass. He's not omnipotent, just immortal. Less people will suffer if he stops Ares, so that’s what he does.
This also goes with a Yin/Yang or positive/negative force God, or that Satan is equal in power to God. If evil is relative to good, then evil must exist for good to exist, and vice versa. Therefore God employs evil in God’s design to manipulate good, because they are the same thing.

3. Open Theism
Premise number three is false, God does not influence our actions in favor of good. God does not influence actions because we have free will.

This is a conclusion I reached a few times myself, but never really thought of any way to prove it. This assumes that the concept of free will means there is no future until we decide what to do. Even though God is omnicient, there is nothing beyond the present that isn't totally dependent on what choices you make, and God gave you free will so God doesn't know what will happen next. So free will is good, and preventing free will is the only form of evil.
I like this one because it allows a more Buddhist interpretation of what is good and bad for you, that suffering is illusion. A person uses free will to experience things, and having free will and using it to gain experience is good, not having free will or having free will and not using it to gain experience is evil. ANY experience is therefore good, because you grow and learn from the free will that God gave you.