(Originally written April 24, 2007 in Book 25)
Class Notes
The Problem of Evil
God is all-Good
God wants to prevent evil
If there is evil then he can't
Therefore, God is not omnipotent
God is omnipotent
God can prevent evil
If there is evil then he doesn't want to prevent it
Therefore, God is not all-Good
There is no God that is both omnipotent and omni-benevolent
Marilyn McCord Adams
Horrendous evil and the goodness of God
Adams points out that the notion of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent eliminating all evil may be a strong perennial philosophical problem but that this notion is found nowhere in theistic beliefs.
1. God
2. Evil
The existence of God and the existence of evil are inconsistencies, not contradictions.
Inconsistency: both cannot be true, but both could be false
Contradictory - one is true, but both cannot be false. One must be true; one must be false.
1. There is an omniscient and omni-benevolent God
2. There is evil.
The inconsistency comes to play only if there is no way for both to be true, but there may be a way to show that both could be true.
Alvin Plantinga's Free-Will Defense
Logically it is always possible to reconcile inconsistencies
There must be a third proposition which is consistent with one and they jointly imply the other:
1. There is an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God
2. There is evil
3. An omnipotent and omni-benevolent Being gives us an unlimited supply of candy
Propositions one and three will lead to evil, but the inconsistency of propositions one and two is resolved.
Plantinga takes the extraordinary position that it does not matter if the resolving propositions is plausible or not, only that it is conceptually possible to resolve the inconsistency. Plantinga feels secure in knowing that the inconsistency is conceptually resolvable whereas most seek a plausible or true resolution of the inconsistency.
God created the best of all possible worlds
The best of all possible worlds contains evil.
The evil in the best of all possible worlds must enhance the total goodness.
World A is without evil and 10 to the 13th power merits.
World B has 10 to the 7th power terps of evil and 10 to the 18th power merits
Merits - measurement of goodness
Terps - measurement of evil (Plantinga)
World B (the world God creates) is better than world A because of Free Will.
Plantinga builds on Leibnizian principles.
Plantinga states Leibniz was right but forgot about something very vital. He calls it Leibniz's lapse. This is that God created the world but has not fully actualized it.
1. God created å (actual world)
2. God did not actualize the current state of affairs of å
World å was created by God, but not necessarily actualized by God
World W was created by God, but not actualized at all
If we have genuine freedom then God (although created the world) did not actualize the world.
W1 (Free Will but no evil). It is logically possible for a possible world to exist that possesses individuals with free will that never do evil.
Transworld depravity - depravity of man in all possible worlds because depravity is a part of man's essence.
No matter what logically possible world I am in I will misuse my free will in some manner.
Planting claims that all humans are under the curse of transworld depravity.
This makes W1 (the world with free will but no evil) logically impossible.
God exists and creates å and creates free beings
The free beings suffer from transworld depravity
Evil Exists
Therefore, there is no inconsistency because free beings misuse this free will to actualize evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment