Not exact matches
His argument might appear
logical, but many thinkers down through the ages have challenged the first part
of the equation and wrestled with the
problem of evil along with the possibility
of the existence
of God.
Isn't Griffin, though, at least justified in contending that FWTs such as Plantinga must do more than simply preserve
logical consistency if they want their considerations to have «any relevance to the
problem of evil as humans actually grapple with it»?
First, until quite recently, most
of the influential analytic philosophers
of religion challenging God's existence in the face
of evil had posed the
problem as a strictly
logical one, and thus Plantinga and other analytic philosophers
of religion can hardly be criticized justly for having expended a great deal
of effort in response.