When dealing with apologetics and counter-apologetics, it is critical to be sure we are talking about the same things when using words.

A good example of this -
Theists generally believe 'atheist' means someone who believes god doesn't exist, while an atheist understands it to mean 'no god claim has met it's burden of proof' or 'you say a god exists, and until you prove it - I don't believe you'.

This may seem like a small and insignificant difference, yet while it is small, it is not insignificant.

Okay, let's get into an agreement on words used:

CHRISTIAN

You would expect this to be a fairly straightforward term without much confusion - and you would be wrong!
There are thousands of different denominations of Christians differing on many varied aspects of their doctrine. Finding similarities is more difficult than finding differences.

The church appears to hold the ship steady by discouraging any deep questioning and keeping teachings and sermons as superficial as possible.

I've heard many times (mostly in jest) an agnostic is someone that doesn't have the balls to commit to calling themselves an atheist. The problem lies in a misunderstanding of what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' encompasses; they do not cover the same ground.

The word 'Agnostic' is made up of the prefix 'a' (meaning 'not') and the root 'gnostic' (meaning 'to know') - hence agnostic means 'not known' or 'unknown'

The word 'Agnostic' comprises the prefix 'a' (meaning 'not') and the root 'gnostic' (meaning 'to know') - hence agnostic means 'not known' or 'unknown'

Essentially, theodicy is the apologetic defending the Problem of Evil. Offering explanations why God would allow suffering in the world.

Proponents believe the natural world, and the unfolding of the natural world, is governed by natural forces alone.

Proponents believe that supernatural or spiritual forces have no role to play in the natural world.

Something cannot exist if it has contradictory attributes.
It's important to note I am speaking here about logical contradictions, not philosophical ones.
Philosophically, anything can be possible while logically this is only the case if the possibility has been shown.

Examples:

• A cup cannot be 100% blue and 100% red simultaneously
• A married bachelor (someone cannot be simutaneously married and unmarried)
• A square triangle (by definition a square having four sides cannot be a triangle having three sides)