RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Oxford.
Plantinga, summarizing his earlier work in The Nature of Necessity and God and Other Minds, demonstrates that the theist does not face a contradiction in a) asserting God exists and b) evil exists. In this work Plantinga also deals with essences, persons, possible worlds, and logical analysis. While Plantinga uses rigorous logic, this book is well-written and and fairly short.
Is There a Logical Contradiction?
If there is a contradiction between the following three premises, the atheologian has yet to show it:
The Free Will Defense (FWD) is the heart of Plantinga’s argument. He argues that a person is free with respect to an action, a world containing free creatures is more valuable than a world without it, and to create free creatures capable of moral good is to create them capable of moral evil (29-31).
Plantinga further clarifies classical theism by noting that an omnipotent God cannot create just any world. God can only create logically possible worlds (or rather, God can only actualize logically possible states of affairs). For example, God cannot actualize a state of affairs in which God didn’t actualize any state of affairs.
This leads to discussions of Possible Worlds (W). W is a way things could have been. It is an actual state of affairs that obtains. A W is a possible state of affairs, but a possible state of affairs is not necessarily a W (35).
Must Evil Exist?
This is the trickiest part of the book. Plantinga seems to imply “yes” at times (though to be fair that probably isn’t his intention). Classical theism has always denied that evil is necessary. Plantinga calls his model “Transworld Depravity:” God cannot create a world in why my essential properties (E) mean I will be free and always do the right thing (48, 52). I think Plantinga is correct but we need to change “always” to “always compelled.”
What about Reformed Theology?
If we accept Plantinga's project, must we also accept free will? It depends on how the term is used. Let's go back to the original argument:
I. He argues that a person is free with respect to an action,
II. a world containing free creatures is more valuable than a world without it,
III. and to create free creatures capable of moral good is to create them capable of moral evil (29-31).
I-III are fine, though (I) is ambiguous. For the moment I am going to say that free means non-physicalist, non-deterministic choosing. See Turretin.
Plantinga, summarizing his earlier work in The Nature of Necessity and God and Other Minds, demonstrates that the theist does not face a contradiction in a) asserting God exists and b) evil exists. In this work Plantinga also deals with essences, persons, possible worlds, and logical analysis. While Plantinga uses rigorous logic, this book is well-written and and fairly short.
Is There a Logical Contradiction?
If there is a contradiction between the following three premises, the atheologian has yet to show it:
- God is omnipotent
- God is wholly good
- Evil exists
The Free Will Defense (FWD) is the heart of Plantinga’s argument. He argues that a person is free with respect to an action, a world containing free creatures is more valuable than a world without it, and to create free creatures capable of moral good is to create them capable of moral evil (29-31).
Plantinga further clarifies classical theism by noting that an omnipotent God cannot create just any world. God can only create logically possible worlds (or rather, God can only actualize logically possible states of affairs). For example, God cannot actualize a state of affairs in which God didn’t actualize any state of affairs.
This leads to discussions of Possible Worlds (W). W is a way things could have been. It is an actual state of affairs that obtains. A W is a possible state of affairs, but a possible state of affairs is not necessarily a W (35).
Must Evil Exist?
This is the trickiest part of the book. Plantinga seems to imply “yes” at times (though to be fair that probably isn’t his intention). Classical theism has always denied that evil is necessary. Plantinga calls his model “Transworld Depravity:” God cannot create a world in why my essential properties (E) mean I will be free and always do the right thing (48, 52). I think Plantinga is correct but we need to change “always” to “always compelled.”
What about Reformed Theology?
If we accept Plantinga's project, must we also accept free will? It depends on how the term is used. Let's go back to the original argument:
I. He argues that a person is free with respect to an action,
II. a world containing free creatures is more valuable than a world without it,
III. and to create free creatures capable of moral good is to create them capable of moral evil (29-31).
I-III are fine, though (I) is ambiguous. For the moment I am going to say that free means non-physicalist, non-deterministic choosing. See Turretin.
