Alvin Plantinga. University of Notre Dame. Follow. Abstract. This book discusses and exemplifies the philosophy of religion, or philosophical reflection on central. God, Freedom, And Evil – Alvin Plantinga – Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. PAGE 18 IS MISSING. HERE IS THE MISSING. Alvin Plantinga is held by many to be the greatest living Christian philosopher, and has made immense contributions to various areas of.
|Country:||Papua New Guinea|
|Published (Last):||12 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||7.82 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Oct 22, Jason Mccool rated it really liked it Shelves: Does Plantinga’s Free Will Defense succeed in describing a possible state of affairs in which God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil?
Causal forces beyond your control would make you tell the truth on every occasion.
Logical Problem of Evil
Although there is no evil and suffering in this world, it is not because God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. Visit our Enduring Standards page to see some of our perennially best-selling backlist books. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith pkantinga God] God, Freedom, and Evil.
AP freerom 3 briefly, but spends the most of his time on 2.
God, Freedom, and Evil
Remington B-a few quick comments. Rather, Plantinga merely provides a defense, which is a possible reason in which an all-powerful and all-good God finds it perfectly reasonable to allow evil, thus proving that there is at least dvil possible scenario in which the three propositions that Mackie claims are contradictory are actually consistent with one another.
Madden, Edward and Peter Hare. If God is going to causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong in W 3there is no way that he could allow them to be free in a morally significant sense.
God, Freedom, and Evil – Alvin Plantinga – Google Books
Chent July 3, Both worlds are populated by creatures with free will and in neither world does God causally determine people to always choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. It seems that, although Plantinga’s Free Will Defense may be able to explain why God allows moral evil to occur, it cannot explain why he allows natural evil. The Ontological Argument In the second main section, Plantinga focuses on a very misunderstood argument for the existence of God- the Ontological Argument, which was originally set out by St Anselm of Canterbury.
Although I believe Plantinga successfully reasons his positions in God, Freedom, and EvilI do not think he will convince anyone to switch sides.
Phillips – – Scm Press. References and Further Reading a. And so forth, I could add a lot more.
God can forcibly eliminate evil and suffering as in W 2 only at the cost of getting rid of free will. Hick rejects the traditional view of the Fall, which pictures humans as being created in a finitely perfect and finished state from which they disastrously fell away.
However, as we all know, our world is filled with a staggering amount of evil and suffering. There is no way that 13 and 14 could both be true at the same time.
As long as there is nothing contradictory about their conjunction, it will be possible even if unlikely for them all to be true at the same time. He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil.
He also maintains that part of what makes us the creatures we are is that we possess morally significant freedom. Find it on Scholar.
Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The book is certainly not without its flaws. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, why does he let so many bad things happen?
Not just any old reason can justify God’s allowing all of the evil and suffering we see. Since he did not do so, God did something blameworthy by not preventing or eliminating evil and suffering if indeed God exists at all. If the descriptions of those worlds are inconsistent or contradictory, the worlds in question will be impossible.
They will somehow no longer be capable of doing wrong. When someone claims 40 Situation x is impossible, what is the least that you would have to prove in order to show that 40 is false?
He reasons as follows.