The argument from natural evil, in its most basic form, states that if there is an omniGod (a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good) then there would be no natural evil in the world, but because there is natural evil in the world, an omniGod does not exist. A theodicy is a form of argument that tries to deal with the problem that natural evil poses. A theodicy will offer justifications for God allowing natural evils to exist in the world. The following essay is going to look at three such theodicies, namely, Free Will theodicies, Absorption theodicies, and a form of theodicy from a Biblical perspective, and critically assess each of their attempts at justifying natural evil in the face of an omniGod.
             In order to understand justifications put forward by theists for the existence of natural evils in a world created by an all powerful, all loving, all good God one must first recognise the distinction between moral and natural evils. A moral evil is one that is brought about by the actions of morally free agents. Moral evils can also be produced by a failure to act under certain circumstances. (O?Hear, 1984) For example poverty may be seen as a moral evil in that it is the result of the refusal of morally free agents (such as government authorities) to aid others in need. In contrast, a natural evil is one that is brought about through no fault of morally free agents. The most common example of a natural evil would be suffering caused by a catastrophic event, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or flood.
             The first theistic approach I am going to look at is the free will defence, which is probably the most popular of theistic approaches as it takes the responsibility away from God and lays it on the head of morally free agents. The free will defence, in its most basic form, states that God allows evil to exist in the world, as it is a logical necessity if freely choosing moral agents are going to exist in the world....