The problem of evil has been an ongoing controversy for theological philosophers. There have been many propositions that have attempted to explain the notion of evil and how it can exist in a world created by an omniscient and omnipotent God. It has been a topic of discussion for hundreds of years because this is the key point of contradiction within the Bible. Perhaps it is its greatest downfall, since many Western philosophers have all put their own ideas on why evil exists, thus trying 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 expanding Spinoza's pantheistic approach. This allowed Schelling to create a romantic mythological vision of God involved in his creation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Schelling was partly inspired by the widely criticized work of Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza, an idealistic philosopher of the 17th century, formulated his own idea of ​​God. Spinoza was a pantheist, this was the belief that God intervenes in his creation and continually lives alongside him. It is a monist approach that includes a “one-all” movement, which implies that God is not separate from his creation. This differs from both Descartes and Kant as they were dualists, believing that God was separate from creation. The infinite and the finite are both separate. Dualist perception implies that since God created the world, He could have let it take its course since both the divine and the world are separate. Descartes agreed with the teleological argument that William Paley compared to the clockmaker who revoked. Schelling believed that God was still involved in his creation and although it was difficult to argue with the monist approach, Schelling tries. Both Schelling and Spinoza believe that we are united with God. Schelling, despite agreeing with Spinoza's pantheistic approach, disagrees with Spinoza's idea that fatalism is a consequence of pantheism. Spinoza explains how pantheism leads to God being all aware of his creation and therefore leads to determinism. Fatalism is determinism. We cannot be free if God intervenes too much with his creation. Spinoza explains it with reification and the connection between “modes” and “substance”. There can only be one substance and everything else in the world is part of that one substance, arguing that "besides 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 casually on a single substance,” which infers that we humans (the finite ways) we depend on God and therefore God is separate from us and we in him. Charlton goes on to talk about how there must be only one God since there can only be one substance, while everything else must be "ways" to that one substance. Since there are many “individuals of the same nature,” human beings cannot be substance and must therefore be “ways.” Since everything is separate from this substance, Spinoza therefore believes that the substance is omniscient and therefore his work falls into fatalism. Many philosophers have heavily criticized Spinoza for the flaw that is fatalism. Pitkänen goes on to explain: “according to Spinoza, all beings belong to God, and because God is the highest totality of everything. Everything comes from God with absolute necessity. It has been argued that pantheism is actually equivalent to atheism because in pantheism there is no difference between God and created beings. This ain turn leads, it was argued, to fatalism because nature is determined causally, and without. Spiritual source outside of man as part of nature would be reduced to its random mechanisms." This, therefore, allowed Schelling to explain a pantheistic approach to God without entering the realm of atheism and defeating its entire purpose. Schelling, therefore, presents us with a pantheistic view of God and nature and is still in line with the Scriptures. This is one reason why Schelling would like to reinvent the notion of theodicy as he would be able to explain God and the problem of evil from a monist approach. As mentioned above, monism was much more difficult in defending God in terms of evil, so it shows Schelling doing the impossible task and making it possible. Schelling admits that “most… would confess that… individual freedom would seem to them to be incompatible with almost all the properties of the supreme being” and goes on to say that it is “unthinkable” to think outside of it. Suggesting that Schelling is trying to set himself an extremely difficult task but also to overcome it. It presents me with a certain level of motivation as Schelling bravely partners with Spinoza to explain a pantheistic vision that works without fatalism. To show nature as unfree, you are depriving God of his rationality, thus falling into basic atheism. This prompted Schelling to reinvent the notion of theodicy as he wanted to explain how pantheism could exist without fatalism. Schelling states that fatalism is not a direct consequence of pantheism and introduced his own theodicy in which he allowed God to be connected with his creation without falling into fatalism. Schelling states that "the fatalistic sense can be connected with pantheism is undeniable, but that this sense is not essentially connected with it is clarified by the fact that many are brought to this point of view through the liveliest feeling of freedom", implying that fatalism is not a direct consequence of pantheism. Schelling goes so far as to state that “his arguments against freedom are entirely deterministic, in no way pantheistic”, Schelling does not accept that nature does not contain freedom. He continues to explain this by demonstrating an analogy with the human body; “A single part of the body, such as the eye, is possible only in the whole of an organism; however, he has a life of his own, or rather his own freedom, which he evidently demonstrates through the illness of which he is capable." This analogy shows us that we as humans can still be free despite believing in pantheism. Schelling explains that even with Spinoza's proposal of substance and us as modality, this does not mean that God is completely in control of us, it just means that we are operating independently of him, but still have our own individual purpose. Let us therefore not fall into determinism. But here the problem of evil still remains. While the concept of free will is in place, this still does not explain how God can allow evil to happen. Schelling then begins to talk about two types of evil. The first is fundamental evil and the second is ontological evil. Fundamental evil is the evil done daily by man. Similar to Immanuel Kant's "Radical Evil", this is where you place yourself above the universal, meaning you think of no one or anything other than your own desires, despite it being morally wrong. Schelling's fundamental evil was based entirely on this idea. It is when one particularizes rather than universalizes. Kant explains this by stating that “if he were to the same evil in another way, this would imply that he had a maxim which creates exceptions to his universal maxim about obedience to duty; and this is a contradiction”, thus showing that those who break the moral code.