In Haslanger’s video “The Problem of Evil,” she presents the idea of contradictory beliefs. I think this is a great compliment to Rowe’s article “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” because it helps to simplify some of the ideas that Rowe presents across a visual medium. She supports the idea that no matter what God’s intentions are by allowing there to be evil, it means that he is not omnipotent and benevolent. Even though Hick does make good points, I think the combination of Rowe and Haslanger suggests that theists should concede that God is either omnipotent or benevolent, but not both. Hick uses extreme examples of a world without evil (a knife turning to paper) when somebody could just logically argue that God would prevent the killer from attempting to stab someone in the first place.
I agree with the idea that god could not be both omnipotent and perfectly benevolent like Rowe. I found Hick’s statement, “It is no limitation upon God’s power that he cannot accomplish the logically impossible, since there is nothing here to accomplish,
but only a meaningless conjunction of words,” unconvincing since it is still a kind of limit and that a god would therefore be under some kind of external logic or rules and only functionally omnipotent with respect to humans.