A paper about this issue gave the term “G. E. Moore shift” to describe one potential response to a logical version of it. In that paper, William Rowe used an example that includes a forest (10[1])fire to suggest (-5[1])an “evidential” (10[1])formulation of this issue. (10[2])A set of dialogues by David Hume (-5[1])popularized this issue as a trilemma (-5[1])attributed to (10[1])Epicurus. (-5[1])Alvin Plantinga (10[1])attempted (-5[2])to (10[2])resolve (-5[1])this issue (10[2]-5[1])by pointing (10[1])to (10[1])the existence (10[3])of “morally (10[2])significant” (10[1])free will. (10[2]-5[2])Theodicies, (10[3]-5[1])or (10[1])arguments against (-5[1])this (10[1])issue, (10[2]-5[3])are named (-5[1])after a Leibniz (10[1]-5[1])work (-5[1])that claims (10[1])we (-5[1])live in “the (10[1])best of all possible worlds” (-5[2])to defend (10[1])the existence of a being (10[1])that is both omnipotent and benevolent. (10[1]-5[2])For 10 points, name (10[1])this issue that asks (10[1])why God allows (10[1])bad things (10[1])to happen. ■END■ (10[15]0[7])