APOL 500
APOLOGETICS FIELD ASED-B ACTIVITY: T P EHE ROBLEM OF VIL
ASSIGNMENT EMPLATE T
Do not change any aspect of this template; and do not delete anything except the type of defense
or theodicy that you will be constructing from this template (see 1a below). Instead, just type
your content in the spaces provided, below. Before typing your content, you should review the
entire document to be sure you understand what is required.
Type your name here:
Instructions for this submission
The purpose of the activity is to provide you with an opportunity to construct a short
defense or theodicy for the problem of evil while anticipating possible objections to that
defense or theodicy and then sharing it in a conversation In the sections provided below, you
will insert your construction and possible objections; you will enter the date, time, setting, and
short description of the person with whom you share; and a short reflection on the sharing
experience.
1. Construct a short defense or theodicy for the problem of evil while anticipating
possible objections.
a. Type below the list, the type of defense or theodicy that you will be constructing;
delete those you are not using in order to avoid possible confusion (limit yourself
to one of the below):
The logical problem of evil
Horrendous evil defense (Sweis, p. 450-57)
b. Lay out your defense or theodicy as you plan to use it in the conversation you
will be having.
Evil and God aren’t alike in any way, but because there is Evil, there has to be a God to defeat it.
While Evil does rule on our earth, God is always present through it, for only He can overcome it.
c. Anticipate two to three possible objections and how you would address those
objections in a short conversation.
Objection 1: Evil persist in our world constantly, in fact it’s the root, so how is God the
victorious in all this?
Response 1: While evil is the root that is right now on this earth, its not gonna persist eternally.
Only God does that. God is victorious for the fact that Evil exist is proof enough He exists and
we can rely that He will be victorious.
Page 1 of 3
APOL 500
Objection 2: Our very actions are evil, how can you say God lies within us if that’s the case.
Wouldn’t that mean He is evil too?
Response 2: God is in hearts when we let Him and allow Him, contrary to Evil, which force
itself upon you, for we are born sinners. God simply redeem us and by being in our hearts, we
are alive. God and evil can’t co-exist.
2. Sharing your defense or theodicy for the problem of evil.
a. Identify the time and place in which you had the conversation.
Time: 12pm
Place: Coffee Shop
b. Identify the setting (coffeeshop, online, text, etc. It must, however, be a
conversation and not a monologue):
Setting: Starbucks at Plaza Rio Hondo Mall, Puerto Rico
c. Identify your conversation partner (no names please): unbeliever, believer;
uncertain; knowledge level, attitude of partner (antagonistic, interested,
doubtful, devil’s advocate).
Unbeliever
Programmer/Basic
Antagonistic
Doubtful
3. Reflection in which you describe how the conversation went, the reaction of your
conversation partner both during and after the presentation of the defense or
theodicy, what you might have done differently, and how you feel after presentation
about the strength of your defense or theodicy.
a. Describe details about how the conversation went.
The writer felt nervous at the start of the conversation, the partner of the conversation
and the writer had history together and seemed somewhat confrontational. The partner
had many questions, especially about personal testimonies. In the process of the
conversation, the friendship gave fruit and things went smoothly. The writer felt calmer
and he did show his security in the process of his defense. The partner didn’t budge in his
conviction but left with a better understanding of his own doubts.
Page 2 of 3
APOL 500
b. Describe the reaction of your conversation partner both during and after the
presentation of the argument.
The partner was doubtful and very much sarcastic. He started with an ego and
sarcastic tone. In the process of the conversation he began to feel more at ease and be
more receptive towards the argument. In the end it reach to an understanding, of course
both parties stayed with their convictions but with a reciprocate understanding.
c. Describe what you might have done differently.
The writer of this statement, felt he should have better his approach, at the beginning
of course. Since it had a personal connection with the person it felt different for the writer
to approach in an apologetic matter.
d. Describe what you feel after the presentation about the strength of the
argument.
The writer of this statement, felt relieved. Conversation went better than expected, the
feeling of peace was found in the process, God’s presence was very strong in that
moment.
Page 3 of 3
