The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[SteveII]

@wiploc

Logically possible propositions are propositions that have no contradictions in them. It is the broadest category of possibility that a proposition can fall into. While it does provide assurance that the conclusion might be true, it does not provide assurance that it is true.

An example: "It is logically possible that I am in Paris" is perfectly true. However, I am not.

In a logical argument, first we check to see if there are any contradictions in the premises and that the conclusion follows from the premises. The PoE argument is logically possible in the broad sense. There are no logical contradictions in the statement. All that gets you is that it may be true.

1. An all-powerful (omnipotent) God could prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
2. An all-knowing (omniscient) God would know that there was evil in the world.
   
3. An all-good (omnibenevolent) God would wish to prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
4. There is evil in the world.
   
5. Therefore God does not exist. 
   

Next, you have to fend off all defeaters (challenges) that might make a premise or the conclusion false. There are opposing defeaters where you argue that a premise is incompatible with another belief that is thought to be true. There are also undercutting defeaters that if true cast doubt on a premise. A defeater for my example above would be that I am really present in New Jersey and I cannot be in two place at the same time.

Plantinga proposes that when you compare the broadly logically possible world God could make with a real one, for every decision that a person made in the possible world, he could very well made a different one in the actual world (free will and all). That would be an opposing defeater for #1.

You could offer defeater defeaters until you iron out every possible objection. Only if the PoE argument is defended against all defeaters would it be considered a "successful argument".