Book Review: God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga
In God, Freedom, and Evil Alvin Plantinga (AP) attempts to rebut the
logical problem of evil [i], which posits that the following two
propositions [i] are inconsistent:
(1) God (an omnipotent and perfectly good being) exists
(2) Evil exists
Where is the Inconsistency?
AP spends the first section of the book attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency between the two premises. He argues that (1) and (2) are neither explicitly nor formally [ii] contradictory, and (following J. L. Mackie) decides that the most promising course for the atheologian [iii] is that the propositions are implicitly contradictory. A set of premises is implicitly contradictory if one or more of the terms violates a logically necessary truth. What the atheologian is looking for, then, in pressing the logical problem of evil is a necessary truth which, when added to (1) and (2) above, yields a contradiction. Apologetics 315.
(1) God (an omnipotent and perfectly good being) exists
(2) Evil exists
Where is the Inconsistency?
AP spends the first section of the book attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency between the two premises. He argues that (1) and (2) are neither explicitly nor formally [ii] contradictory, and (following J. L. Mackie) decides that the most promising course for the atheologian [iii] is that the propositions are implicitly contradictory. A set of premises is implicitly contradictory if one or more of the terms violates a logically necessary truth. What the atheologian is looking for, then, in pressing the logical problem of evil is a necessary truth which, when added to (1) and (2) above, yields a contradiction. Apologetics 315.