Philosophy of Religion Essay
This paper considers responses by Plantinga to Mackie’s logical argument and highlights crucial assumptions of the published literature scope. It thinks the Free will arguments and transworld depravity. The paper has identified, analyzed and provided assumptions based on the two kinds of literature presented to assist complete this assignment.
The Plantinga’s free will defense provides a case against the logical problem of evil by John Mackie which illustrates that the attributes of God such as omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence do not associate with the presence of evil. The Plantinga’s defense of free will starts with the assertion that Mackie ideology has not generated from foundation which is the explicit contradiction about God and presence of evil.
The Plantinga’s defense proves that the attributes of God such as omnipresence and others are not contradictory and if there is any conflict then it must be based on theologies’ implicit assumptions that demonstrate elements which are not stated in the argument. The explicit contradiction is overshadowed, and the theologies must add several instrumental ideologies to prove otherwise. However, if Plantinga’s had failed to provide further arguments the theologies intuitive illustrations that the contradictory statements will remain unanswered. Platinga provides a solution by expounding on two significant ideologies.
In the first Ideology Plantinga support that God His by omnipotence nature is not expected to do anything literally unless otherwise. God cannot create a square circle which is contrary to His nature or create things out of free will that would be immune to opting for evil. Plantinga states that moral value existing in humanity free will so credit as offsetting rationalization that God could have a rational moral purpose for allowing the evil existence. Platinga does claim to have provided the argument that assumptions of the logical problem are not right and also do not support that Gods purpose to allow evil is meant to preserve the free will. Plantinga’s argument shows that consistent problem associated with evil is illogical.
Plantinga puts forward a defense that provides a new ground which is meant to illustrate that there is the logical possibility for God who is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent to develop a world which has moral evils. It is not a must for Platinga to prove his position since it is considered to be logically valid and appreciated by many philosophers. Through this approach, there is difference existing between its ideology and traditional theology which would focus to show that the new propositions by Plantinga are valid but instead illustrates the argument is logical, plausible or there is solid proof supporting the squabble.
The approach reduces the burden of proof on Platinga, and still, in his arguments provides a strong counteraction to Mackie’s ideology that simultaneous presence of evil and Gods character is rationally positive. The world has the creature which is free to choose whether to act in ethical ways instead of doing evil things, more appreciated, than the world with beings which are open to all choices. God creates creatures but does not determine whether they will choose to act in good or bad ways. If God does otherwise, then the beings shall not be free and will not do what is right freely. To create creatures that are morally good, God has allowed them to with capacity of doing things which is moral evil but provides them with protection from sin. Unfortunately, some of God’s creatures followed the wrong path through the exercise of freedom to do evil things thus the origin of moral evil. This aspect of free beings being moral evil does not depend on Gods omnipotence or any of His qualities; the only way God would have forestalled the existence of moral evil is by eliminating chances of moral good. Plantinga argues that despite God being omnipotent, there is the possibility that it was not his capability to create the world with moral good but no moral evil. The inconsistency which is logic to be associated with God, even though entirely reasonable, the creation of creatures who choose moral evil.
The Plantinga’s arguments follow propositions that: (i) there is the possibility of worlds even though omnipotent being cant actualize and (ii) the existence of the world with creatures which are free to choose moral good. Plantinga mentions his first argument referred to as Leibniz’s lapse since it is opposite to the scientist’s assumption. The 2nd proposition is somewhat contentious; in his cases, Platinga refutes the compatibilist idea of freedom in which God would intentionally make agents act in moral good without constraining their liberty.
The argument would contradict human freedom since God would control their action thus Plantinga argues that in a world that people would only go well; the omnipotent God would still be aware of conditions in which the creates would do moral evil. Therefore God could decline to create such conditions.
Thus, Plantinga weakly actualizes world which has only moral good. Plantinga’s ideology of weakly realization that the world can be perceived as having Almighty God achieving part of the whole world, and supporting the creature’s power of free choice to complement the it. Therefore it is not possible that an individual completes the world through only making morally upright decisions hence the existence of the possibility that an individual has free choice to avoid or opt for moral evil. However, there are situations in the real world that would morally right person to act differently; therefore the segment of the society that would make a person do moral evil exists to complete life. Plantinga argues that every individual suffers from Transworld depravity thus the existence of the power of choice.
Let us consider a practical example to fully and clearly understand the argument where James turn down an offer of $1000 to buy his catch after coming from a hunting session. Considering Plantinga view, what if James was offered $10,000 for his capture (stated denoted as Z)
(a). If state Z were achieved, James would have taken the money
(b). If state Z were obtained, James would have refused to make money.
Plantinga argument importantly relies on condition above (a) or (b) being correct and the other false unless otherwise. Plantinga argues the outcome of such interactions consequence of the invalid state is true cannot be conditioned by God. To demonstrate this Plantinga reasons that if (a) is true, it is not possible for God to create a world where Z is met, and James still refuse to take the offer. Consequently, the possibility (a) and (b) not having opposite truth conditions (true and false), considering other assumptions by Plantinga this particular case collapse.
When we consider Mackie’s argument that there is no valid reason for God to allow evil to happen, Plantinga claims that even though God is omnipotent, it was beyond Gods power to develop a world with only moral good without moral evil. Looking at a case where a police officer has the freedom to take a bribe or refuse to make it. What God wants to the police officer to do depend on if the conditions illustrate below is correct.
(d) If P were to meet the criteria of being actualized and made true, then the police officer would accept the bribe; or (f) if P was achieved, the police officer would not take the bribe. It is detrimental to note that one of these conditions must be true. If the situation is true then God actualizes P, then the police officer will take the bribe and Gods desire will not be met. If the condition is true and God achieves P, then the police will refuse to accept the bribe and Gods desire will be fulfilled. Moving to the next step we consider world (f) where P is true and police officer freely declines to take the bribe. But if (d) is true, it is not possible for God to actualize World (d). Since either (d) or (f) must be right, it illustrates that there is one world (world (d) or world (f)) that cannot be actualized by God despite his omnipotence. Plantinga argues that the case is valid for every individual existing in the world. Therefore every free individual in the world would at least take the wrong action. No matter which conditions God put on the planet every person would go wrong because of free will.
Philosophers believe that Plantinga was victorious and it was an easy one. Mackie admitted the fact that plating proved the possibility of coexistence of God and evil is logically consistent. Even though making still question if plating had thoroughly tackled the problems associated with crime. The approach emanated from the aspect that Plantinga provides sentiments of why God allows sin and sufferings but does not account for evidence relating to the subject. Currently, arguments are stating that the evil happenings and sufferings are results of Gods nonexistence. Plantinga clarified most of the notions surrounding the logical problem of evil in satisfactory format.
This paper has analyzed the free will defense responses to Mackie’s logical problem of evil identifying and illustrating critical assumptions. It has summarized vital points surrounding the subject and provided analysis of the issue using two illustrations included in the paper. The examples have been used to demonstrate the assumptions for clarity and understanding. Natural evil robs individual’s satisfaction with self. It is meant to make an individual humble, reflect on the importance of temporal good, frailness and to turn away from doing evil things. Since God is above humanity, He can choose wrong or right and this is one element or power shared with understanding to demonstrate our likeness with God. It is therefore essential as the morally upright individual to strive all the time to do good though we were created inclined towards sin. It is our responsibility to align self with moral right and avoid evil at all cost. Despite the existence of natural evil it is meant to guide humanity towards moral goodness.