You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense
Pages 8 (2008 words)
The free will defense is like an effort to show that “there may be a different kind of good that God cannot bring without permitting evil” (Plantinga, p, 29). There are good states of affairs without evil, they do not entail the existence of any evil, but God cannot bring them without permitting evil…
Platinga demonstrates how theistic belief, about God being omnipotent and wholly good, is logically consistent. Permitting evil means creating a world with moral good, as well as, moral evil. This is an argument that answers the questions raised by different philosophers, or defends itself against some philosophers, with contradictory ideas about the existence of evil and the role of God. In the logical problem of evil, it is indicated that there are different possibilities to the existence of evil. Some of these mentioned are that God: can eliminate evil but he is adamant, wants to eliminate evil but is incapable of eliminating it, does not wish to eliminate evil and cannot eliminate evil, and wants to eliminate evil and can eliminate evil (Zagzebski, p. 146). Platinga gives an argument that creatures are given free will to do moral good and evil, and God had a valid reason for it. This paper is an explanation of Platinga’s argument of ‘free will’.
In Platinga’s Free Will Defense, he has made certain definitions and distinctions. Being free is defined with respect to an action. Being free with respect to a certain action means that the individual has the free will to refrain from performing it or to perform it. There are no causal laws or antecedent conditions that predetermine the person’s choice of action. Free will means the person has the power to decide to act or not to act. ...
Not exactly what you need?