"God said it, I believe it, and that settles it", is the final refuge of faith-based rhetoric, not a viable philosophical position. Has any significant religious thinker of any stripe constructed a refutation of the paradox of evil attributed to Epicurus: 'If god is willing to prevent evil, but unable, then he is not omnipotent; If he is able but unwilling, then he is malevolent; If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil; If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him god?'
I think that Leibniz's theodicy is an attempt to settle this paradox. He basically argues that there are three sorts of evil in the world :
- Metaphysical evil, which is necessary since only God himself can be perfect, therefore the world is not.
- Physical and moral evil, which are allowed to exist because they enable a greater good if one is able to look at the broader picture.
Hence "Everything is for the better in the best possible world", i.e God reduced evil to the minimal amount.