Originally posted by epiphinehas
The evidential problem of evil as articulated by Rowe and Draper also fails to establish a genuine defeater for theism. I'd refer you to Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 465-481.
Stephen Law's inversion of the typical apologetic arguments for a wholly good God, although a fun read, misses the point entirely. The aim of such a ...[text shortened]... elief. I'd say the onus is on the atheist to come up with the more effective arguments.
I agree with you up to a point. The logical and evidential problems of evil do not make belief in god untenable. They aren't a 'defeater' or a knock out punch in that sense.
I don't think that's the point of raising them though. The problem of evil and the problem of suffering are opening lines in a language game, and the most effective line in response is The Book of Job Defense. All effective christian responses transpose to this, and the result is stalemate.
I haven't read a lot of Plantinga, but what little I have encountered has not been persuasive. I'm not particularly partisan when seeing debates between atheists and theists though. Did you see the one where William Lane Craig totally kebabbed Peter Atkins? Any, I digress...
I think you might have missed the point of Law's argument slightly. If you find arguments for The God of Eth plausible, then you have to concede that, in considering these aspects (evil, suffering), an evil god is just as plausible an explanation as a good god. If you want to say that the arguments for Eth are not plausible, then since they are symmetrical to those used by theists to defend the christian god, you must reject those also.
I think most of these arguments between theists and atheists run a bit backwards though. If you take the christian god as a premise, and you are clever enough, you can make this consistent with reason and the available evidence, albeit at the cost of having to construct a somewhat rococo metaphysics. The POE and POS are just aspects of this.
Similarly, if you reject the god premise your metaphysics can be a little more austere-a spartan meritocracy as opposed to the baroque monarchy of theism. But atheists still have problems to grapple with, some are easier but I suspect some are more difficult.
It is difficult for me to imagine being on the fence, but although we might agree that neither side could persuade somebody to one side or the other just with logical arguments like the POE, we might disagree on which side has prima facie plausibility. I have read some theists (not you) who have smugly quoted Plantinga or Craig and declared that the problem of evil has been dealt with. I think they miss the point big time: plausibility.