It is not the case that Rowe interprets P in such a way that not-G entails P, since he interprets P as saying that it is not the case that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being together with some known good that justifies that being in allowing E1 and E2.
?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.