A theodicy that requires supplementation by additional theodicies—free will defense, eschatological compensation, skeptical theism—to cover its explanatory gaps concedes by its own structure that it is incomplete as a standalone account.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Eschatological compensation(another type of theodicy mentioned as a supplement): The idea that God will make up for suffering in this life by rewarding people in an afterlife or at the end of time.
Explanatory gaps(in epistemology and philosophy of mind): Puzzles or missing pieces in a theory where something important cannot be fully explained or justified—like trying to explain how something works when a crucial step is missing.
Free Will Defense(Sometimes used narrowly to cover only evil resulting from human action, but extended by some to cover evils caused by supernatural agents other than God): A version of the Greater Good Defense proposing that free creatures who can care for each other and whose welfare depends on each other's freely chosen action constitute a good that requires the possibility of persons harming each other
skeptical theism(Applied both to the problem of evil and to the argument from nonbelief)

Based on where you are in your exploration