So...guess I'm the new guy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Perhaps you should be more rigorous with your research when berating others? Platinga's resolution to the problem of evil was a resolution to charges of logical inconsistency by means of proposing a possible way in which god and evil could co-exist. His resolution was to the criticism of inconsistency, not the problem of evil itself. Do I get to invoke consensus now.....?

Jackass.

Finally! Some two bit poindexter who knows what a search engine looks like. I was beginning to think all you wannabes could manage was chanting mantras and spewing non sequiturs. But enough about your pitiful existence, let's point out how you are wrong.

Firstly, Plantinga's resolution defeated the logical problem of evil. The charge of inconsistency WAS the logical problem. For the simpleton, the argument can be summarized as: "Given God's properties, how can God coexist with evil?" Plantinga showed that God can coexist with evil, and thus defeated the logical problem of evil. Now the logical problem isn't the only problem of evil. There is also the probabalistic rendering of the problem. It's much weaker. It doesn't say "God doesn't exist", so much as "It's unlikely that God exists."

So yes, Rhythm managed to get something right in his dribbling stream of incoherencies: Every version of the problem of evil is not defeated. Only the logical problem of evil is. This isn't very good news, because the logical problem of evil was long considered THE problem of evil. It was also the most powerful of all PoE arguments out there. Which means we really have to shore up the evidential, or probabilistic argument to defeat Christians.

Some day I'll probably start a thread explaining the argument, how it works, and how you can use it to defeat Christians in debates.

Until then, Rhythm, go ahead and give me a foot rub.