tirely alone. Hick concludes that “the world must be to man… etsi deus non daretur,” meaning ‘as if there were no God.’ Hick therefore has taken the Irenaean framework and developed it in to a contemporary theodicy. John Hick wants to remind us that the Eden narrative is a myth and ought not to be taken literally and less ought to be used as the historical basis for a theodicy. Therefore, rejecting the Augustinian tradition. There is also a constant emphasis on the free choice and human free will as being central to this contemporary theodicy. On the development of this idea, our rationality enables us to make free choices, and this is another argument as to why it seems plausible that human beings are created in imago Dei. Unlike the rest of creation, human beings are at the top of the hierarchy. What separates us from every other species is our capacity to reason. This reflects God, and therefore gives us evidence as to why human beings particularly were created imago Dei. God’s rationality enabled him to make choices and create the entire universe. His position of power reflects rationality, and therefore our rationality must reflect God. Thus, I would argue that unlike Irenaeus, who although plants the idea that there are two stages; imago Dei and likeness, he failed to instruct us on how we can go from imago Dei to that likeness; and that Hick’s development creates a more concrete and effective theodicy. However, Hick’s theodicies might be challenged for a few reasons. The distinction Irenaeus and then therefore Hick makes between the image and the likeness of God is not implicit in the Bible, and so is speculative. Moreover, some might ask why the Augustinian theodicy was more influential over Christendom tradition rather than Irenaeus even though his ideas seem more apparently plausible for the contemporary reader. Hick replies that the orthodox church did not develop Irenaeus Eastern theodicy as well as in the West, where Augustine’s Theory was developed. Besides this, there is plenty of substantial argument in Hick’s theodicy. Hick’s insistence that soul-making from our position of imago Dei requires a long process of experience as opposed to an instantaneous gift may receive positive review. Furthermore, he avoids the objection of God not being present in our life experience. The ‘vale’ idea gives plausible reason as to we can still be created imago Dei whil>