Instructions: Please Choose One Of The Following Questions A

Instructionsplease Chooseoneof The Following Questions And Post An An

Instructions: Please choose one of the following questions and post an answer/response by Thursday 11:59pm ET. Also please make sure to respond to at least two posts of your classmates and/or the instructor by Sunday 11:59pm ET. To earn full credit for this discussion assignment, you need to make three substantive posts (see Discussion Guidelines under Course Home). Make sure to include references to the course materials in your responses.

(1) The philosophical problem of evil involves three claims which seem to be mutually incompatible: (1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing. (2) God is perfectly good. (3) Evil exists. The reason these claims are incompatible is that if God is all good and all-knowing, He would likely not allow evil to exist, if He could help it. Therefore, the existence of evil suggests that God does not exist, or He is not all-powerful or not all-knowing. Do you find this argument convincing or is it similar to asking whether God could create a rock so large that He cannot move it? Why or why not? When answering, include references to the assigned readings.

(2) Briefly summarize Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense argument, outlining Plantinga's argument in detail. Did you find Plantinga's argument confusing or convincing? How does it relate to the problem of evil? Do you think Plantinga's argument has solved the problem of evil? Why or why not? When answering, include references to the assigned readings.

Paper For Above instruction

The problem of evil has long stood as a central challenge in the philosophy of religion. It questions the coherence of the classical theistic conception of God—an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being—in the face of the apparent reality of evil in the world. The classical formulation isolates three core claims: that God is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and wholly good (omnibenevolent); and that evil exists. Critics argue that these claims are logically incompatible because if God possesses these qualities, evil should not exist, as an omniscient and omnibenevolent being would prevent evil if able. This conundrum is often exemplified through the analogy of asking whether God could create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it; if He can, then He is not omnipotent, and if He cannot, then He is not omnipotent either, revealing a logical incoherence in the concept of omnipotence.

The core of the problem emphasizes the tension between these attributes. For example, the existence of natural evil—suffering caused by natural phenomena—challenges the notion of a wholly good and omnipotent deity who would logically prevent such suffering. Similarly, moral evil caused by human free will raises questions about divine omnipotence: if humans possess genuine free will, then evil results from their choices, and God's omnipotence does not necessarily entail control over human free will. Critics, therefore, argue that either God is limited in power or knowledge, or that He permits evil for reasons beyond human understanding, or that the traditional conception of God must be revised.

Proponents of the logical problem of evil, such as J. L. Mackie, argue that the coexistence of these claims is logically impossible, asserting that the existence of evil is sufficient to conclude that such a God does not exist. Conversely, the evidential problem of evil, as articulated by William Rowe, considers whether the amount and types of evil present in the world are evidence against God's existence, even if not logically incompatible. Theodicies and defenses attempt to reconcile these claims, with some arguing that evil serves a greater divine purpose or that humans lack the moral or epistemic capacity to judge divine reasons.

In contrast, Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense attempts to resolve the logical problem of evil by arguing that the existence of evil is compatible with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God because evil results from free will—an essential good. Plantinga posits that God could not create beings with free will who always choose good without undermining free will itself. Therefore, the existence of evil is a necessary consequence of free will, which enables genuine moral goodness. His argument suggests that the presence of moral evil does not point to divine incoherence but to the value of free will that God freely granted to creatures, even if it results in evil.

Many find Plantinga's Free Will Defense convincing because it offers a logical explanation for the existence of moral evil without compromising God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence. By emphasizing the importance of free will as a greater good, it shifts the focus from divine incapacity to the value of genuine moral agency. However, critics argue that the defense may not fully address natural evil—suffering caused by natural disasters or diseases—since free will does not directly account for such events. Furthermore, some question whether allowing natural evil is necessary or whether God's omnipotent nature could have devised a world with free will but without such suffering.

In conclusion, while Plantinga's Free Will Defense provides a compelling response to the logical problem of evil, it does not fully resolve the entire issue encompassing natural evil. It effectively shows that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible by assigning a crucial moral value to free will. Nevertheless, the debate continues, especially concerning whether this defense adequately addresses all forms of evil and suffering present in the world. The ongoing philosophical discourse indicates that the problem of evil remains a significant challenge, prompting further reflection on divine attributes and the nature of suffering.

References

• Alvin Plantinga. (1977). God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans Publishing.
• J. L. Mackie. (1955). 'The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against The Existence of God'.
• William Rowe. (1979). 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism'. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(2), 335-341.
• William Lane Craig. (2008). Hard Questions, Gospel Answers. Baker Academic.
• Richard Swinburne. (1993). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
• William Lane Craig & Chad Meister. (2009). The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of God and Suffering. Baker Academic.
• Elliott Sober. (2009). Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. University of Chicago Press.
• Peter van Inwagen. (2006). The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press.
• Norman Geisler. (2011). When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Christian Evidences. Moody Publishers.
• William A. Dembski. (2004). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. InterVarsity Press.