The Platiga’s free will defense
The Platiga’s free will defense is considered to be a logical argument which was created by American philosopher. This argument provides a defense against logical problem of John Mackie which illustrates that the attributes of god such as Omni benevolence, omniscience and omnipotence are not associated with the presence of evil. The Platiga’s defense of free will starts by assertion that Mackie ideology has not generated foundation which is explicit contradiction in relation to God and presence of evil.
The Platiga’s defense proves that the attributes of God such as omnipresence and others are not contradictory and if there is any then it must be based on theologies’ implicit assumptions that demonstrate elements which are not stated in the argument. The explicit contradiction is over shadowed and the theologies must add several instrumental ideologies to prove otherwise. However if Platiga’s has failed to provide further arguments the theologies intuitive illustrations that the contradictory statements will remain unanswered. Platiga provides a solution by expounding two major ideologies.
In the first Ideology Platiga support that God by omnipotence is not expected to do anything literally. God cannot create a rectangular circle which is contrary to His nature or create things out of free will that would be immune to opting for evil. Platiga state that moral value existing in humanity free will so credited as offsetting rationalization that God could have a rational moral purpose for allowing the evil existence. Platiga do not claim to have provide argument that assumptions of the logical problem is not right and also do not support that Gods purpose to allow evil is meant to preserve the free will. Platiga’s argument shows that logical problem associated with evil is illogical.
Platiga puts forward a defense that provide a new ground which is meant to illustrate that there is logical possibility for God who is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent to develop a world which has moral evils. It is not a must for Platiga to prove his position since it is considered to be logically valid. Through this approach there is difference existing between it and traditional theology which would focus to prove that the new propositions by Platiga are valid but instead illustrates the argument is logical, plausible or there is solid proof supporting the squabble.
This reduces the burden of proof on Platiga and still his approach provides strong counteraction to Mackie’s ideology that simultaneous presence of evil and Gods character is irrationally positive. The world has creature which are free to choose whether to act in good ways rather that do evil things, more appreciated, than the world with creatures which are not free at all. God creates creatures but does not determine whether they will choose to act in good or bad ways. If he does that then the creatures shall not be free and will not do what is right freely. To create creatures that are morally good, God has to create them to with capacity of doing thing s which is morally evil.