Plantinga's free will defense and Hick's soul-making theodicy both operate across all three categories simultaneously, suggesting the categories lack differential argumentative force.

?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.

Differential argumentative force(as a measure of how effective each argument is): The idea that some arguments work better or are more convincing than others; here, suggesting both defenses are equally strong.
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
Hick(refers to the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): John Hick was a 20th-century philosopher of religion who developed an influential theory about why suffering exists in the world.
Plantinga: Alvin Plantinga is an American philosopher best known for his work on the philosophy of religion, particularly his arguments defending religious belief as rational and reasonable. He developed influential ideas about how people can rationally believe in God without needing scientific proof, arguing that faith and reason aren't necessarily in conflict. His work has shaped modern religious philosophy and made him one of the most important Christian philosophers of the past 50 years.

Based on where you are in your exploration