God, Freedom, and Evil

by Alvin Plantinga

In his discussion of natural theology (arguments to prove the existence of God) and natural atheology (arguments for the falsehood of theistic belief) Plantinga focuses on two of the traditional arguments: the ontological argument as an example of natural theology, and the problem of evil as the most important representative of natural atheology. Accessible to serious general readers.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction, Faith

122 pages, Paperback

First published November 30, 1973

About the author

He is an American analytic philosopher, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and the inaugural holder of the Jellema Chair in Philosophy at Calvin College.

Plantinga is widely known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics and Christian apologetics.

He has delivered the Gifford Lectures three times and was described by TIME magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God"

Plantinga is the current winner of the Templeton Prize.

Reviews

[Lee Harmon · Rating 4 out of 5]

How do I rate a book that will bore most of you but titillate the rest? Half way between two stars and six stars, I guess.

I’m secure in my status as a religion nerd, so I’ll admit I loved it. This is an introduction to philosophical apologetics, a short little book that can be read in a couple hours, and understood in five or six hours. Philosophical reflection, Plantinga assures us, is not that different than just thinking hard. It’s is an excursion into the joy of logic … for the fun of it, not necessarily to reach any meaningful conclusions. He spends half the book discussing the problem of evil, and the other half on natural theology. Thus half of the book presents a case against God and half attempts to prove he exists. In the second half, Plantinga briefly introduces the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, and then spends the rest of the book on the Ontological Argument.

Plantinga’s argument against the problem of evil is fascinating yet unsatisfying, and his discussion of the ontological argument is equally fun but equally unconvincing … like one of those puzzles where you know there’s something wrong and can’t quite place your finger on it.

One note: Do not try to read an electronic version! The constant referring backward to numbered arguments will be very frustrating without a paper copy.

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

A classic in philosophy. I’m not committed to the free will defense or the ontological argument (as stated by Plantinga), but I deeply enjoyed Plantinga’s take on both. This is a very accessible book for laymen!

[Winston Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Problem of Evil is an insurmountable one for Christians (and all other theists who believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god). There have been intense and motivated efforts over the past two millennia to defend such a position rationally, and they have all failed. Miserably. Utterly. And in many cases, dishonestly.

Some approached involve invoking an unknown "greater good" defense (which throws god's omnipotence under the bus. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a "middle man"). Attempts to shift the problem by asserting that human happiness is not the goal of life (but knowing god is) removes the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of god (if you love someone, you don't want them to suffer. It really is that simple).

Here, Plantinga takes the old canard of free will. Unfortunately, free will is meaningless unless everyone has an equal amount of it. This is undeniably NOT the case. Not everyone is given the same lifespan, physical strength, mental acuity, political clout, financial resources, and so on. Plantinga is pontificating from the luxurious confines of his residence, funded by conveniently gullible sheep. This has certainly damaged his ability to empathise with the billions who live on less than a dollar each day. And the thousands who starve to death every time the Earth completes a full rotation.

Plantinga also, perhaps unwittingly, advocates a social Darwinism in which the rich and physically powerful are able to murder, rape and steal from weaker individuals (and are therefore less able to exercise their own free will to prevent their own suffering). Plantinga worships a cosmic pedophile who revels in granting freedom to abhorrent individuals while getting his jollies from seeing the most vulnerable suffer and die in agony (only to get thrown into even more torture in the Christian vision of hell).

Lastly, a loving god would take away free will from those who would willingly surrender it in return for a life without suffering. Funnily enough, Plantinga seems to believe in a heaven without suffering but with all the bells and whistles of freedom. So why not create that universe from the get-go and stick with it? Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? It certainly is not something a perfect god would do. Then again, a perfect god would not blackmail beings he supposedly loves for eternal worship.

[J. Wootton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and lucid, this book does well what it does, yet feels incomplete.

Of its two divisions, Part I: Natural Atheology, which focuses on the "problem of evil" (theodicy) is the more valuable. Plantinga mildly and systematically shows how the existence of evil is not logically incompatible with the classical conception of a god who is perfectly powerful, perfectly wise, and perfectly good. Plantinga neither proves, nor attempts to prove, a positive assertion about god's existence or qualities; he simply shows that the existence of evil does not necessarily mean that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god can't exist. In other words, the co-existence of evil and an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god is a logically valid possibility.

Part II: Natural Theology focuses on the ontological argument, which has often been offered as a proof for god's existence. Plantinga explains the argument and the various major refutations and supports that have been given for it over the last few hundred years, then offers his own analysis, in the process subtly shifting the terms of the proof to make them clearer. Ultimately, he concludes that the ontological argument is logically valid but does not prove god's existence.

[Maryam · Rating 4 out of 5]

درباره کتاب همین بس که بگویم کتاب سخت خوانی است واحتیاج به تمرکز زیادی دارد

[James Zeller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability, especially in light of the existence of evil.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good short-yet-complex philosophical work to read through over a weekend. Plantinga is rather brilliant and that's very much on display here in this work. Whether I agreed with him or not, the book was rather intellectually stimulating.

There were two parts to this book: one part dealing with the problem of evil, another part dealing with various proofs for God. I found it interesting how, despite being most well-known for his contribution to Reformed epistemology and being sometimes labeled as a Reformed philosopher, his defense to the problem of evil is decidedly not Reformed and is much more molinist in its presentation of human free will and divine sovereignty. It's a rigorous defense of molinist thought against the problem of evil... but it's one I found less helpful as someone who isn't a molinist myself.

His arguments about the various proofs for God were likewise rigorous but unhelpful in my opinion. He doesn't believe either the cosmological or the teleological arguments actually held up to scrutiny. I somewhat agree on the teleological argument, but in both cases I felt like he was arguing against weak versions of these arguments rather than the strongest versions of those cases. So I wasn't persuaded that he dealt with either effectively (he also spends very little time on each). I also found it quite fascinating that he finds the ontological argument (generally seen as one of the weakest argument) to be most convincing and ended up kind-of holding to a version of that argument. IMO, his ontological argument falls prey to the problems with the ontological argument in general, and I didn't find his solution satisfying.

On the whole, I agreed with very little in this book, but my mind was sharpened by reading it, and I was glad I did so.

Rating: 4 Stars (Very Good).

[Bryce Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent contribution to a theist’s answer to the problem of evil.

Plantinga lays out a rigorous analysis to answer a question posed by J.L. Mackie who asks the question “Was it possible for God to create/actualize any possible world?” If no, then clearly God is not omnipotent for then there are some worlds in which it was not in God’s power to actualize, rendering him shy of his claimed omnipotence. If yes, then why is there evil in this world as surely it is possible that God could have actualized a world in which humans commit no evil?

He then lays out a succinct but excellent synopsis of his free will defense so as to make it accessible to the lay reader looking to be challenged with an academic level baseline reading.

After briefly mentioning both the cosmological and teleological arguments, he expounds upon the ontological argument laid out by Anselm. He responds to various objections (Gaunilo and Hume) and then bolsters the argument to show its consistency and soundness.

Overall, for the lay reader looking to wet his appetite with academic reading on the topic of philosophy of religion, this book is perfect. Just beware that you may have to think hard about what he is saying. In my experience, I sometimes had to read a page several times to understand the crux of his arguments and the opponents he responds to.

[Isaiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful, groundbreaking work by Dr. Plantinga.
I started this book earlier this year, arrogantly believing I'd get through it quickly due to its short length. However, what I found, is that I'd be thrust upon one of the many ladders by which thousands of years of philosophy have been climbing up to. Plantinga successfully defends God (insofar as God "needs" to be defended) against the Problem of Evil using the Free Will Defense, a defense that utilizes aspects of the Greater Good Theodicy, in fact, implies it, while also fleshing out the traditional free will response to the Problem of Evil. On top of this, Plantinga goes over the idea of God's omniscience not violating Human Freedom and 3 major arguments for God's existence.
Simply put, Plantinga's work is a well-appreciated rung on this particular philosophical ladder. I intend to reread this book once again and read Plantinga's more complicated works once I'm more well-read in philosophy—which, I can confidently say, this was the book that led me to the spark (Anselm's Proslogion) that ignited my love for philosophy.

[L.S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why there is Evil and pain in the world is an interesting fact but has nothing to Do with the rationality of belief in God

God could not have created World only with moral good so he had to allow moral evil

? Natural evil is a result of non-human spirit free action?

[Jason Mccool · Rating 4 out of 5]

At only 112 pages of normal paperback format, God,Freedom, and Evil is a small book, but still fairly heavy reading. This was my first Plantinga book, but it appears to be a condensing and refocusing of some of his larger works as he points readers in search of fuller explanation to these other works in various footnotes. In that regard, this seemed like a good intro to his works, and a guidepost to future research. Plantinga's goal here is to look at the the "rational acceptability of theistic belief", not attempting to provide a "proof" for God, but rather answering the question, "Is belief in God a reasonable option?" He then divides the book into 2 main parts: "natural atheology" and "natural theology". In the first half on natural atheology, he addresses the so-called "Problem of Evil", while Part 2 addresses - very briefly - Aquinas' cosmological argument and Paley's teleological argument, followed by a more in-depth look at Anselm's ontological argument. Plantinga's style is an interesting mix of rigorous technicality in a conversational tone. Hence, the section on the problem of evil is reminiscent of a Socratic dialogue in its development/objection/refinement/objection cycle. Plantinga uses numbered premises as a shorthand throughout the book, so the reader should be prepared to jump back and forth a little to see which premises he is referencing when he says something like "[14] [15] & [18] necessarily entail [21], which is a self-contradiction. Therefore, this line of reasoning fails. But let's try changing premise [14] to say...." And so he goes through each argument showing why one version fails, then modifying premises to seek out a version that is not logically fallacious while still making its original point. In the end, the problem of evil argument for atheism does not survive Plantinga's analysis. The skeptic may be tempted at this point to say that Plantinga is biased and selective in his analysis, but what I think may surprise many skeptics is the rigor with which Plantinga treats the problem of evil. He takes this objection to God seriously, and goes through it with great thoroughness. This is not the typical shallow throwing about of the issue you might see on the internet, but a very methodical academic examination of it, with a modest conclusion, namely, that "the Free Will Defense, however, shows that the existence of God is compatible, both logically and probabilistically, with the existence of evil; thus it solves the main philosophical problem of evil."

The skeptic might also be surprised that he did not seem to have any qualms about critiquing theistic arguments, as he pointed out flaws in all three classical cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. What did disappoint me a little was his brevity on the cosmological and teleological arguments. He criticizes all 3, but stops at the critique of the first 2. He does say in the introduction that he will be focusing on the problem of evil on the atheist side, and the ontological argument on the theist side, but his treatment of the cosmological and teleological arguments may leave the reader with the impression that these are not robust arguments. To spend 8 pages on these 2 lines of reasoning, without answering the objections to them, and then conclude that they are both "unsuccessful" is an unfortunate move on Plantinga's part. That said, his treatment of the ontological argument is actually why I bought this book.

Although a Christian myself, I'd never found Anselm's version of the ontological argument for God very compelling. But William Lane Craig had referenced Plantinga's reformulation of it in his "Reasonable Faith" book, and that really forced me to rethink my hesitancy with this line of reasoning. Published in 1974, Plantinga's treatment of it here is not as polished as it is in later statements of it, but it's nice to see him really walk through the development here. He starts with Anselm's version, looks at objections and addresses them if they seem to misunderstand the actual argument, or adjusts the premises to answer objections. Plantinga's biggest contribution here is probably bringing his "possible worlds" frame of reference that he uses in answering the problem of evil to bear in fortifying the ontological argument. The ontological argument has always been pretty abstract stuff, so this frame of reference is very helpful, in my opinion, and does improve the argument dramatically. Even so, in the end, Plantinga is respectfully modest in his survey of the argument in his end form of it, as he states, "What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but it's rational acceptability." And in Plantinga's formulation, the ontological argument does that surprisingly well given the ridicule it has taken over the centuries. He would say, I think, that this is not a case-closer, but a door-opener, in that it removes claims of intellectual objections with which atheists may have tried to "barricade the door" against God, and reveals them to be simply willful rejection rather than carefully reasoned objections as they claim.

[Ben Chubb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hope you paid attention in stats class

[Amund Helgaas · Rating 4 out of 5]

For å være populærutgave er boken ganske filosofisk avansert, men den er ryddig bygd opp med argumentasjonsrekker og eksempler underveis. Plantinga er både frimodig og ydmyk i sine argumenter. En god filosofisk bok for kristen og de som ellers er interessert i religionsfilosofi. Jeg skjønner hvorfor det er en klassiker.

[Joseph Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Plantinga at his best! A brilliant couple of arguments regarding the rationality of the Christian faith in the existence of evil. He even throws in his modified ontological argument for those who want to hurt their brains! Grateful for men like Plantinga, responding to objections with logical precision and creativity. The best work on the problem of evil I have read!

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this for a master's level philosophy of religion course. In this book Plantinga pretty much demolished what is called the logical problem of evil that writers like Mackie proposed. The notion that the existence of evil is somehow logically contradictory to an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is deconstructed and assigned to the ash-heap of history. While there are a few out there still trying to use it - mostly internet skeptics who are unread - they are like modern day alchemists who still think they can turn lead into gold. Good luck with that.

He also addresses the inductive problem as well as a series of arguments for the existence of God such as the cosmological, teleological and ontological ones. He has modified his view of the cosmological argument since this book was published and gives it some more credence.

This is a must have for anyone interested in the problem of evil. Note - it is a purely philosophical discussion and isn't going to be a comfort to someone in distress. So if you are looking for a pastoral help this isn't it. Nonetheless it does clear away some philosophical trash from the atheist/skeptic side of things.

[Raya · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title is quite self-explanatory as to what the book is about. Taking up questions like - Why does God permit evil? and does the existence of evil make it unlikely that God exists? (These are chapter headings btw) Plantinga tries to simplify some of the core arguments of Natural Theology here.

The concept of God has always fascinated me. Belonging to a religious Hindu family, the popular idea of something up there in the sky was both intimidating and interesting to me. That's what motivated me to give this book a try.

If you are someone who likes to learn most stuff in terms of maths and reason, this book will be for you. Some basic high school knowledge on sets and matrices would be helpful.

[Bruno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise, clear, funny, and making a genuine contribution to a question as old as philosphy itself!

This is a piece of analytic philosophy greater than which cannot be conceived. Great job, Mr. Plantinga.

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very learned, but a little too analytic for me.

[Taylor Simpson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil (hereafter, GFE) might be compared to one of those little stands they sometimes have set up in Walmart or Sam's Club with the free samples, only the free sample in this case is perfectly grilled filet mignon.

The Premise
In GFE, Plantinga sets out to briefly compare the merits of both natural atheology (the study of the irrationality of God's existence) and natural theology (the opposite of atheology - namely, the study of the rationality of theism). The book (which is a mere 112 pages in length) is split into two sections, which cover the two opposing views respectively. The main argument examined in the natural atheology section is the problem of evil; the natural theology section looks briefly at three distinct arguments for God's existence, with the main focus on what is called the Ontological Argument.

The Results
If you are unfamiliar, Dr. Alvin Plantinga is said to be one of (if not the) best Christian philosophers of our age, or any age, really. This is the first work of his I've actually read, but his name crops up like weeds (excuse the negative connotation of 'weeds') everywhere I look in philosophy of religion (i.e. dealing with apologetics and the like). Dr. William Lane Craig (my favorite philosopher and speaker/writer on these subjects) looks up to Dr. Plantinga, if that tells you anything...
Anyways, I expected a dense book, difficult to understand, and hard to get through - something that would've been in the introductory philosophy classes back in college that I would need to watch a summary video on YouTube to understand.
If others pick up this book and that turns out to be true for you, in no way feel bad or stupid. GFE is about as 'popular level' as Dr. Plantinga could probably write, honestly - it is dense in places, but, for someone with some rudimentary acquaintance with philosophy, it isn't that bad, and turned out to be quite accessible for me.
I'm trying to make this review shorter than the book itself, and so I'll only say a couple of concise points in summary:

> The section on the problem of evil is fantastic. He deftly and adroitly defends theism against the charge that evil's existence precludes God's. I was indirectly familiar with Dr. Plantinga's work on this through Dr. Craig's references, but reading it for myself I see why Craig regards Plantinga so highly. For the short space in which he was working, Plantinga skillfully turns over and explores every stone necessary to handedly put to rest the idea that evil makes theism irrational to hold to, and shows why evil's existence is compatible with God's.
> The section on natural theology is, admittedly, disappointing. He touches on the Cosmological Argument and Teleological Argument, but only spends 3-4 pages on each! Being familiar with these arguments before opening this book, and having read hundreds of pages on them elsewhere, it was very underwhelming to find a very, to me, flimsy and unthorough handling of them. He concludes that both of these arguments are unsuccessful in making a good case for theism, which is okay for him to conclude, but the lack of depth in examining them makes this conclusion seem rushed and unfounded. (Note: I believe I have seen and heard elsewhere that Plantinga, since the release of this book, has backtracked on some of these conclusions and now says these arguments succeed, but it was surprising to see these conclusions here.)
> In contrast, and equally surprising, Plantinga devotes a amount of significant space to exploring the very odd (and controversial) Ontological Argument. This assessment is much more in-depth than the other arguments (to the point where I don't see the reasoning in even including the other two, by comparison) and is similar to his treatment of the problem of evil in the natural atheology section.

Conclusion
This book is receiving four stars because:
1. Plantinga is a master of philosophical tools and techniques; his skill in navigating the practice of what he calls 'thinking hard about something' is awesome to witness.
2. In spite of the complexity of the issue, and the lack of space available, he clearly and concisely guides the reader through the necessary, logical steps in examining difficult topics about religion and its intersection with philosophy.
3. A little prior knowledge of (or at least familiarity with) rudimentary philosophical concepts is required to understand this book well; this is not a detractor from it's rating, but I want to put this in perspective for prospective readers.
4. Two out of three of the arguments from natural theology are, to me, handled too lightly - I wonder why they are even included in this book. (This is the only thing that prevents me from giving five stars, unfortunately.)

[Carlos Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Plantinga says that the problem of evil is the strongest challenge to theistic belief (i.e. if god is good, omnipotent, and omniscient, then why is there evil in the world?) This book takes a quasi mathematical approach to prove that (assuming God exists) that evil, and the amount of evil we perceive, is logically consistent with the other properties we endow Him with (omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence). The book is a mere 110 pages but certainly reads like 300 pages since it's full of very nuanced logical statements which I had to read slowly and many times. This book helped me practice thinking very deeply about how to explore the logic between seemingly simple statements and gave a good overview of typical arguments on a very interesting philosophical problem. If you have patience for reading through things like "Suppose, for example, you have a pair of propositions p and q and wish to show them consistent. And suppose we say that a proposi­tion PI entails a proposition P2 if it is impossible that PI be true and P2 false-if the conjunctive proposition Pl and not P2 is necessarily false." and you are curious about the problem of evil I very much recommend this book. Although the subject matter is quite different, I thought it was better written and more interesting than 'Knowledge and Christian Belief".

[Nurullah Doğan · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, I am proud to say that I understood %85 of the book, the arguments and the premises Alvin Plantinga presented, defended or refuted. He is a genius and I now see and am very glad to get to know why he is a very respected scholar who is quoted a lot when it comes to Natural Theology, arguments for GOD's existence, the problem of evil etc.

Reading "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig at the same time(didn't finish that one yet) was also interesting because I could see where and what exactly Craig was influenced by.

For the %15 part I missed, I want to reread it at some point in my life. (Probably next year.) I just really couldn't digest it all... At some point, I thought my brain was going to be fried... That is why I didn't give it 5 stars, but let's see if that will change when I read it again.

[Sarbook · Rating 4 out of 5]

سوالی که این روزها به شکل بسیار تاثیرگذار فلاسفه و چه بسا انسان‌های معمولی را به خود مشغول داشته مساله شر و ارتباط آن با موجودیت خداوند است که بر اساس آن از طرفی خدا دارای ویژگی‌های قدرت مطلق، علم مطلق و نیک‌خواهی صرف است و از دیگر جهت شر در دنیا ملاحظه می‌گردد. این موضوع چه بسا نوظهور و بدیع رخ می‌نمایاند اما در واقع سبقه‌ای بسیار طولانی دارد و به شکل تدوین یافته از سال 1970 با طرح استدلال ویلیام راو، ظاهری بسیار جدید و الزامی یافت.
http://sarbook.com/product/333844

[Del Herman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This isn't bedtime reading and pushing through 112 pages of theorem after theorem is a lot different than reading CS Lewis or one of the other great Christian thinkers who rely on literate metaphor and a sort of common sense philosophy cushioned under beautiful prose on human nature, the world, etc. That being said though, the theists of the world need people like Alvin Plantinga defending the theist worldview from the very thing its detractors hit it on: logic.

Plantinga does well in explaining the logical inconsistencies in the arguments of those who claim that the existence of evil and suffering precludes the existence of an omnipotent God. (That being said, the problem of evil has never much been a problem for me in terms of my belief in God). As for the theistic arguments, I am less inclined to agree about his dismissal of the cosmological and teleological arguments but I am appreciative of his intellectual honesty in not accepting these simply to prove the existence of God. Plantinga is a true philosopher: he comes in with an empty and open mind to the problem and uses logic to find his solution. For Plantinga (as should be for every philosopher), the arguments do not bend to prove God, God is revealed by virtue of the arguments. I will definitely examine his refutations of Aquinas at a later date (I have always been a fan of the old Prime Mover argument).

Where of course Plantinga is most famous for arguing is in his revision of the Ontological Argument. This is an argument that has been fascinating to me since I first read Anselm's odd, seemingly round-about justification. I had accepted Kant's refutation for a long time but Plantinga here seems to have breathed new life into that 11th Century piece of genius. It's by virtue of that argument alone that this book becomes noteworthy. If ontologically speaking, God is not only a possibility but a certainty through modal logic, it is significant ground for believers.

*For future reference, this is Plantinga's Ontological Argument:
. Maximal Excellence- A being which possesses omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.
. Maximal Greatness- A being which possesses these qualities in every possible world.
. Possible world- A possible version of reality if certain factors in our reality were different.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. (Meaning that a maximally great being can possibly exist in some alternate reality, though alternate realities do not have to exist).
3. If a maximally great being exists in a possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, it must exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Interesting stuff. The ontological argument is always a slippery one to grasp but I will spend a lot of time pondering the logic of these premises.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Plantinga, summarizing his earlier work in The Nature of Necessity and God and Other Minds, demonstrates that the theist does not face a contradiction in a) asserting God exists and b) evil exists. In this work Plantinga also deals with essences, persons, possible worlds, and logical analysis. While Plantinga uses rigorous logic, this book is well-written and and fairly short.

Is There a Logical Contradiction?

If there is a contradiction between the following three premises, the atheologian has yet to show it:
God is omnipotent
God is wholly good
Evil exists

We will call this Set {A}. The atheologian has to show that one of these propositions’ denial or negation contradicts another proposition (Plantinga 13). Even if the atheologian cannot show a logical contradiction, Plantinga will go on to argue that he cannot show a logical inconsistency (at least not on these three propositions. By the end of the book all three of these are meticulously refined).

The Free Will Defense (FWD) is the heart of Plantinga’s argument. He argues that a person is free with respect to an action, a world containing free creatures is more valuable than a world without it, and to create free creatures capable of moral good is to create them capable of moral evil (29-31).

Plantinga further clarifies classical theism by noting that an omnipotent God cannot create just any world. God can only create logically possible worlds (or rather, God can only actualize logically possible states of affairs). For example, God cannot actualize a state of affairs in which God didn’t actualize any state of affairs.

This leads to discussions of Possible Worlds (W). W is a way things could have been. It is an actual state of affairs that obtains. A W is a possible state of affairs, but a possible state of affairs is not necessarily a W (35).

Must Evil Exist?

This is the trickiest part of the book. Plantinga seems to imply “yes” at times (though to be fair that probably isn’t his intention). Classical theism has always denied that evil is necessary. Plantinga calls his model “Transworld Depravity:” God cannot create a world in why my essential properties (E) mean I will be free and always do the right thing (48, 52). I think Plantinga is correct but we need to change “always” to “always compelled.”

Conclusion:

This is the easiest of Plantinga's books to read. And while the material is simpler, he does clarify points from *The Nature of Necessity.* My only criticism is the second half on natural theology. His arguments on Evil and Free Will Defense stand or fall independent of Natural Theology. That section merely restated the material from *God and Other Minds.*

[Thomas Beck · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like thinking about Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument. To the best of my understanding, it goes, roughly, like this:

Suppose we define God as a maximally great being - that is, a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world. There seems to be no inherent contradiction in the definition, so we can at the very least say that such a being is possible. And if it is possible, then it exists in some possible world - call it W. But if W had been actual, then

(a) There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being

would be an impossible statement, and what is impossible in one world is impossible in all worlds. So if (a) is an impossible statement, it then follows that a maximally great being exists in all worlds, including this one. Therefore, God exists.

[Avel Deleon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alvin Plantinga is a first class philosopher. This book analysis the argument of evil, goes through the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the ontological argument. Alvin begins by assessing anthology( mainly support by the evil "natural" and personal evil" in the world) and corresponding to this theodicy( Perhaps, God has a very good reason, but that reason is too complicated to understand. Or perhaps he has not revealed it for some other reason.) This are unsatisfactory answers. And, Plantinga is well, aware of this his point here is that, even though one doesn't know the reason for the evil, it does not follow that it is irrational to belief in God.

Mackie claims these premises are contradictory
(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is wholly good
(3) Evil Exist

But, he is well aware that these premises are not enough so he goes on to add "additionally premises" and quasi-logical rules, he says we need them to show the contradiction.
(4) A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can
and
(5) There is no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

This is the begging ....
If you are interested you should read the book. It is a great book. Besides, my friend Christopher! I know, no better philosopher than Plantinga. The ontological argument first written by Anselm is vastly improved and makes a clear cut argument on the logical possibility of God's existence. Logical possibility!!! The cosmological arguments and the teleological arguments are no were as strong but they are quite interesting. Having read through Saint Thomas work on creation, and on God some of the material was repetitive but the book is only 113 pages it well worth the read, for anyone interested in philosophy of religion, or anyone who likes to think hard!!!!

[Armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

To summarize, according to Plantinga, 1) the problem of evil does not logically contradict the existence of God, and 2) with a modified version of Anselm's ontological reasoning, it seems we cannot prove the existence of God, but at least we can show its logical possibility. So not much for or against either side of the argument, then? I could say: well, I new *that* before! But I think that wouldn't do justice to this book.

What I like about the analytical approach to philosophy of religion is that it's trying to capture in purely logical terms what other philosophers have to describe with many complicated words. Exactly that is also its greatest shortcoming, though, as it necessarily needs to be based on man-made assumptions and man's metaphysical faculty might be just very limited. I thought the very basic argument that evil might exists because overall, it causes even more good, was already quite convincing. The whole possible-world logic and stuff about transworld-depravity and the like, on the other hand, introduces so much room for error that I tend to believe we should have stopped, there. The same goes for the chapter about natural evil, where the same argument, namely that the existence of suffering due to non-moral evil might create more good, afterall, was more convincing than the argument for non-human significantly free beings creating it.

Plantinga's book is still a very interesting read and a good exercise in analytical reasoning, even if you don't accept all of it's premises and conclusions, which, I think, you don't have to.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two thoughts while reading GF&E:
1. I really need to research more into transworld depravity before I could give this book five stars, because I just couldn't wrap my head around it while reading the Problem of Evil section. This is my fault.
2. I worry a bit that modal logic is too weak of a tool to prove the existence of God (in the sense that he is a being of maximal greatness). Like, idk, is it a legit move to ask someone to accept that there's a possible world where a being contains properties that force it to exist in the actual world? Plantinga makes it seem pretty legit; I really do feel that the Ontological Argument contains some promise.

Anyways, I'd recommend this book to anybody who doesn't mind heavy thinking about the existence of God. First half is about the Problem of Evil (argument against the existence of God) and the last half is mainly about the Ontological Argument (argument for the existence of God). Plantinga is a great thinker and writer. He's very thorough in his writing.
Highest possible four-star recommendation I can give.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book surprissed me. It is a technical philosophy book, one I have not read before but itis short enough so that his arguments are clear. He addresses two topics: does the presence of evil lead to the conclusion there can be no God and is it reasonableto conclude there is a God based on natural theology.

This is a defense rather than a proof way of addressing these questions. He shows using logic how free will results in evil and therefore does not disproof God. Similarly he rejects the cosmological and teleological arguments for God as inadequate.He then digs into Anselm's ontological argument and concludes that it is sufficient to show that beliefe in God is not irrational and against logic.

Of course, this is not a concusive proof. Indeed God requires belief/faith, one can't proof a being beyond our comprehension.

Yes, I liked the book :).

[Russell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Plantiga built a very clever logical argument here, but there are flaws (e.g., certain assumptions about things like free will). But cleverness aside, it's ultimately just a castle without a foundation. By his own admission at the end of the book, nothing in these arguments prove that god exists. Why go to all this trouble defending someone whose very existance completely lacks evidence? Christian reviewers who think this book offers some kind of blow to atheism are just engaging in wishful thinking.