As an agnostic I've take an interest in watching debates on theodicy (the problem of evil, both the agnostic/atheist charges and the Christian answer). Usually the debates aren't fully satisfying because the unbeliever and believer sides are arguing two different things.
The unbeliever argues that suffering makes it unlikely that a good God exists (but not impossible), while the believer side argues that evil is consistent with a Christian worldview but doesn't try to strengthen the case for that worldview as part of that debate.
I'd like to know if there is a name for the following kind of argument against the "good God" idea. Suppose that we believe in a good mother who has an infant son. One day we come across her son locked in a car with no one around. This would suggest she's not a good mother, but wouldn't prove it because she might have good excuse (like her husband just had a heart attack nearby and she had to deal with it). Then we come across the abandoned child a second time. Now it's more likely she's not a good mother (or doesn't exist). We come across the abandoned child a million times. Now the evidence is overwhelming that she's not a good mother or she doesn't exist.
I know this probably has something to do with inference or statistics. How would a philosopher describe this type of argument?
Then on the believer side, they introduce ideas like "free will" to explain the existence of evil. We all know the free will argument, but a new one to me was that "the universe is lawful (obeying the laws of physics) and that in a lawful universe both good and evil are possible--it could be no other way." There are a couple points here I'd like to understand better. One is that this theory is introduced almost like a new law of physics or something - it's probably extra-Biblical. Then, there's the idea that the person is arguing for a consistent theology but not trying to strengthen the case for that theology. What type of argument is that?
