Abstract
In this paper, I provide a defence of theism against James Sterba’s version of the logical problem of evil, at least where the focus is on moral evil (I do not have much to say about natural evil in this paper). After giving my own account of the distinction between the logical and evidential problems of evil, I set out to argue that Sterba fails to prove atheism. The problem lies with this third premise. I think that there is a possible defence according to which the three ‘Evil Prevention Requirements’ that Sterba endorse are all true but do not support atheism.