Requiring evidential atheists to refute ontological arguments conflates the logical problem of evil with the evidential problem, which Plantinga himself distinguished in 'God, Freedom, and Evil' (1974).

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Alvin Plantinga(as the originator of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism): A contemporary American philosopher known for arguing that belief in God is rational without needing scientific proof, and for challenging the idea that evolution supports atheism.
Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Evidential atheism(the main subject of the statement): The position that God probably doesn't exist because there isn't enough good evidence that God does exist (as opposed to saying it's logically impossible for God to exist).
Evidential problem of evil(a different type of argument about God and evil): The argument that while evil doesn't logically prove God doesn't exist, the amount of evil we see is strong evidence that God probably doesn't exist.

Based on where you are in your exploration