In my last post, we ended with Plantinga's rather disappointing conclusion that the arguments for the existence of God are not compelling. In the quest to determine whether belief in God is rational, he moves on to some of the arguments against the existence of God. It should come as no surprise that the main argument discussed is the Problem of Evil.
Arguments of Natural Atheology
For most atheologians of the time, the force of the problem of evil is that it shows a logical inconsistency in the core tenants of theism. They take the following five propositions as being essential to theism:
a. God exists
b. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
c. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
d. God is wholly good
e. Evil exists
Here we already run into a snag. These five propositions do not entail a formal contradiction. This may not be readily apparent to you, and it almost certainly isn't to an atheist with whom you might be debating. Nonetheless, the point remains. H. J. McCloskey apparently did not realize this; however, J. L. Mackie - one of the most brilliant atheist philosophers of the 20th century - did . He realized that in order to arrive at a formal contradiction, at least one other proposition must be added.