Philosophy Of Religion

Philosophy Of Religion

Introduction

This paper considers responses by Platinga to Mackie’s logical argument and highlights crucial assumptions of the published literature scope. The Free will arguments and transworld depravity counteracts Joh Mackie arguments on logical problem of evil The paper  identifies, analyzes and provides assumptions based on the free will defense to assist complete this assignment.

Plantinga’s free will defense provides a case against the logical problem of John Mackie which illustrates that the attributes of God such as omnibenevolence , omniscience, and omnipotence do not associate with the evil presence. Plantinga’s defense of free will starts with the assertion that Mackie’s ideology has not created a solid enough foundation to his argument to explicitly make the assumption of God and the presence of evil a contradiction.

Plantinga’s defense proves that the attributes of God such as his omnipresence and others are not contradictory and if there is any then it must be based on theologies’ implicit assumptions that demonstrate elements which do not state in the argument. The explicit contradiction in logical problem of evil is overshadowed, and the theologies must add several instrumental ideologies to prove otherwise. However, if Plantinga has failed to provide further arguments the theologies intuitive illustrations that the contradictory statements will remain unanswered if the argument is not based on biblical facts.Platinga provides a solution by expounding two significant ideologies.

In the first Ideology, Plantinga supports that God by omnipotence, is unexpected to do anything literally from His power. 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 state 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 not claim to have provided the argument that assumptions of the logical problem are not right, and also does not support that Gods’ purpose to allow evil is meant to preserve the free will. Plantinga’s argument shows that the consistent problem associated with crime 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 necessary for Platinga to prove his position since it is considered to be logically valid from his arguments. Through this approach, there is difference existing between it 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, his method provides the strong counteraction to Mackie’s ideology that simultaneous presence of evil and Gods character is irrationally positive. The world has the creatures which are free to choose whether to act in ethical ways or do evil things, more appreciated, than the world with beings which are not open at all. God creates creatures but does not determine their characteristics and behavior. As such the beings shall not be free and will not practice their rightful doing freely. To create creatures which are morally upright, God should design them with capacity of practicing purely evil things but provide protection for them from natural evil. 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. The aspect of free beings being moral evil is independent from 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 badness. There is no inconsistency which is logic to be associated with God, even though entirely reasonable, the creation of creatures who opt moral evil.

The Plantinga’s arguments follow propositions that: there is the possibility of worlds even though omnipotent being can’t actualize and the existence of the world with creatures which are free to choose moral good. Plantinga mentions his first argument as Leibniz’s lapse since it is opposite to the scientist’s assumption. The 2nd proposition is somewhat contentious; in his case, 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 if 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 creatures would do moral evil. Therefore God could decline to create such conditions. Thus, God weakly actualizes world which has only moralood and Plantinga share similar opinion. Plantinga’s ideology of weakly realizing 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 globe. It is 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 influence 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 produced, 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 real 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 states (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 his 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 real, 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 real then God actualizes P, then the police officer will take the bribe and Gods desire will not be met. If the condition is real 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 earth (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 due to validity in his logics. Mackie admitted the fact that Platinga proved the possibility of coexistence of God and evil is logically consistent. Even though making still questionf plating had thoroughly tackled the problems associated with evil. 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 is illustrated by Gae and other philosophers. Plantinga clarified most of the notions surrounding the logical problem of evil in satisfactory format.

Conclusion

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.