The problem of evil is an ongoing controversy for theological philosophers. Many proposals have attempted to explain the concept of evil and how it can exist in a world created by an omniscient and omnipotent God. This has been a topic of discussion for hundreds of years because it is the key point of contradiction within the Bible. This is perhaps his greatest downfall, as many Western philosophers have all put forward their own ideas about why evil exists and thus tried to prove the existence of God himself alongside it. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling was a German philosopher of the late 18th and early 19th centuries who reinvented the notion of theodicy by developing Spinoza's pantheistic approach. This allowed Schelling to create a romantic mythological vision of God being involved in his creation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Schelling was partly inspired by the widely criticized work of Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza, an idealist philosopher of the 17th century, had his own idea of ​​God. Spinoza was a pantheist, it was the belief that God intervened in his creation and continually lived alongside him. This is a monistic approach that includes a “one whole” movement, implying that God is not separate from his creation. This differs from Descartes and Kant because they were dualists, believing that God was separate from creation. The infinite and the finite are both distinct. The dualistic perception implies that since God created the world, he could have let it take its course since the divine and the world are separate. Descartes shares the teleological argument that William Paley likens to the watchmaker who revokes. Schelling believed that God was always involved in his creation and, although it is difficult to argue with the monist approach, Schelling went for it. Both Schelling and Spinoza believe that we are united with God. Schelling, although he agrees with Spinoza's pantheistic approach, does not agree with Spinoza's idea that fatalism is a consequence of pantheism. Spinoza explains how pantheism leads to God knowing his creation perfectly and therefore leads to determinism. Fatalism is determinism. We cannot be free if God intervenes too much in his creation. Spinoza explains this by the reification and the link between “modes” and “substance”. There can only be one substance and everything else in the world is part of that one substance, stating that "apart from God no substance can be or be conceived", thus placing God as the only substance. Spinoza then goes on to explain how we, as creatures, are “modes,” implying that we are separate from God. William Charlton explains that "Spinoza thinks that finite modes depend carelessly on a single substance", implying that we humans (the finite modes) are dependent on God and therefore God is apart from us and we in him . Charlton continues to say that there must be only one God, because there can only be one substance, while everything else must be "modes" for that one substance. Since there are many “individuals of the same nature,” humans cannot be substances and therefore must be “modes.” Since everything is part of this single substance, Spinoza therefore believes that the substance is omniscient and his work therefore falls into fatalism. Many philosophers have strongly criticized Spinoza for his flaw of fatalism. Pitkänen goes on to explain: “according to Spinoza, all beings belong to God, and because God is the highesttotality of everything. Everything derives from God with absolute necessity. It was claimed that pantheism was in fact equivalent to atheism because in pantheism there was no difference between God and created beings. This in turn leads, it has been argued, to fatalism, because nature is causally determined, and without it. A spiritual source outside of it, man as a part of nature would be reduced to his occasional mechanisms. This therefore allowed Schelling to explain a pantheistic approach to God without delving into the realm of atheism and without going against his overall goal. Schelling therefore presents us with a pantheistic vision of God and nature and remains consistent with Scripture. This is one reason why Schelling would like to reinvent the notion of theodicy because he would be able to explain God and the problem of evil from a monist approach. As mentioned before, monism was much more difficult to defend God in terms of evil, so it shows Schelling accomplishing the impossible task and making it possible. Schelling admits that "most... would confess that... individual freedom seems to them incompatible with almost all the properties of the highest being" and goes on to say that it is "unthinkable" to think outside of this. This suggests that Schelling is trying to set himself an extremely difficult task, but also to overcome it. This presents to me a certain level of motivation as Schelling courageously joins forces with Spinoza to explain a pantheistic vision that works without fatalism. By showing nature as unfree, you deprive God of his rationality – you therefore enter into basic atheism. This prompted Schelling to reinvent the notion of theodicy because he wanted to explain how pantheism can exist without fatalism. Schelling claims that fatalism is not a direct consequence of pantheism and introduced his own theodicy in which he allowed God to be connected to his creation without falling into the trap. fatalism. Schelling states that "the fatalistic sense may be connected with pantheism is undeniable, but that this sense is not essentially connected with it is elucidated by the fact that so many people are led to this view by the keenest feeling of freedom ", which implies that fatalism is not a direct consequence of pantheism. Schelling goes so far as to assert that "his arguments against liberty are entirely deterministic, in no way pantheistic." Schelling does not accept that nature contains no freedom. He goes on to explain this by demonstrating an analogy to the human body; “An individual part of the body, like the eye, is only possible within the whole of an organism; nevertheless, he has his own life, even his own freedom, which he obviously proves through the illness of which he is capable. This analogy shows us that as humans we can still be free despite our belief in pantheism. Schelling explains that even with Spinoza's proposition that we and substance are modes, this does not mean that God completely controls us, it just means that we operate independently of him, but still have our own individual goal. We therefore do not fall into determinism, but this is where the problem of evil always lies. Even if the notion of free will is in place, it still doesn't explain how God can allow evil to happen. Schelling therefore begins to speak of two kinds of evil. The first is fundamental evil and the second is ontological evil. Fundamental evil is the evil committed daily by humanity. Similar to Immanuel Kant's "Radical Evil", this is where one places oneself above the universal, meaning one thinks of no one or anything other than one's own desires, even if he is morally wrong. The fundamental evil..