A defense need merely show that it is likely that there are reasons which would justify an omnipotent and omniscient being in not preventing the evils found in the world, even if one does not know what those reasons are.
omnipotent(Used in the context of arguing about whether multiple omnipotent beings could coexist.)
A being whose will is never thwarted; a being capable of bringing about any willed outcome.
the problem of evil(Contemporary philosophical terminology)
The family of issues raised by the question of why pain, moral wickedness, and varieties of imperfection exist if a perfectly good and all-powerful God alone created everything in the universe.
Given the apparent failure of the previous two suggestions, a natural conclusion is that the story that is involved in a defense must be one that is likely to be true. But if this is right, how does a defense differ from a theodicy? The answer is that while a theodicy must specify reasons that would suffice to justify an omnipotent and omniscient being in allowing all of the evils found in the world, a defense need merely show that it is likely that there are reasons which would justify an omnipotent and omniscient being in not preventing the evils that one finds in the world, even if one do...