1. What are the general logic and the presuppositions of the problem of evil? 2. How can the problem of evil be called into question and how can one develop grammatical methods and philosophical tools to build a successful antitheodicy? 3. How can one develop a grammatical metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem through a philosophical grammar of the underlying language/world and being/meaning-links? 4. How can the grammatical approach to metaphysical questions and to the metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem of evil be used to analyse religious and worldview questions, and articulate ways of existential, humanistic and religious sense-making that overcome the problem?
ellauri151.html on line 532: Moral antitheodicies are no good because god gets flushed down the toilet if he hasn't got his finger in every pie. Well Larza doesn't say it this directly, but implies as much. And that's not good in a theology thesis. So we have to go with concptual antitheodicy, if at all.
ellauri151.html on line 533: There are three traditions of conceptual antitheodicy: Kantian, Jamesian and Hamannian antitheodicies.
3