Free Will Theodicy Essay

If we accept the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on deterministic grounds. Human life, as we know it, would not make much sense without the concept of freedom. In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what we

The problem of evil is a highly debated topic among religious and non religious people. The large controversy stems from the Hebrew-Christian definition of an all knowing, all powerful creator known as God, and the presence of evil among mankind in the world, among God’s products of creation. Fyodor Dostoevsky is a philosopher who wrote the piece, Why Is There Evil? This piece explores a man named Ivan’s view on why he can’t fully except God and his world. John Hick wrote a piece named There Is A Reason Why God Allows Evil. Hicks view opposes/ can be seen as a response to Dostoevsky’s, in explaining why God has allowed

Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

4. Adam’s decision was made by his subjective ability to reason. There is no way for a scientist or other being to take apart Adam and physically analyze Adam’s ability to reason. Since choices and reasoning are not at all physical, they cannot share a physical cause and effect relationship, and have nothing to do with determinist’s causal relationship philosophy.

Philosopher Peter Van Inwagen argues in The Argument from Evil for the existence of God. Inwagen believes that the concept of free-will is the reason why evil exists in the world. He first discusses what the characteristics of a God are; a God is omnipotent and morally perfect. These reasons present the Problem of Evil which is; why would an omnipotent and morally perfect God allow evil to persist? To this question, we get the two explanations of a theodicy, which provides justification for God, and a defense, which takes into evidence evil and suggests that humans may not have the whole picture to understand why God allows evil. The free-will defense is the most popular defense which states that God knows that evil is inevitable when it comes

There is a possibility that God gave humans free will so that in return, they may give him genuine love, rather than forced love. The problem of evil stems from free will, because humans can freely choose not to love God. But even if humans choose to love God, everyone commits small-scale acts of evil. It can be argued that since the world is evolving, the judgement of God has also evolved in order to fit with the times. Therefore, his judgement may not be quite as harsh as the bible states it to be. The criticism against this theory, is that since God is said to be an all-powerful and morally perfect being, there would be no point in changing himself for humankind. If he were to change himself in order to fit accordingly to today’s humans, it would mean that they do in fact have free will, which disproves the existence of an omniscient God. As humans, we do not know where God’s morality lies. Could he be evil, or could he be moral without enough knowledge or power over evil? God is so incomprehensible that we as humans cannot begin to understand how a PKM God and evil can coexist. What we do know is that there are tremendous evils present in this world, and from the logical perspective, if such evils are present, a PKM God cannot co-exist with them. There may still be a God, and it is arrogant to say that there is absolutely no God at all. However, if evil is present in this world, the God in which we refer to the most, cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect at the same

Determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism are three significantly different views on where unaccountability might stop and where free will and moral responsibility begin. Determinism is the strict opinion that every action and decision is the cause of an event, genetics or the environment prior to that action. Quite the opposite is libertarianism, which happens to be the genuine belief in free will as well as the denial of universal causation. Finally, deep self-compatibilism meshes both of these stand points together and introduces the idea that one’s action can be free if it stems purely out of personal, authentic desire. Since all three judgments have a backbone of convincing

One of the heaviest arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. The traditional conception of God is as omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If this is true then God either can’t do anything about it, doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care about it. This then implies that God is either not all powerful as he can’t prevent the suffering, not all-knowing as he doesn’t know about the suffering, or not all good if he doesn’t care about the suffering. This challenges the concept of God being the greatest being in the universe. However, there are many different responses to the concept of evil, they may not be all satisfactory but they cast doubt on this argument. One of the responses challenging the problem of evil is that God did not create the evil in the world. A lot of the evil in the world only occurs

What is the Problem of Evil? Many philosophers and theologians have wondered why an Abrahamic God that has specific attributes that include omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence allow unnecessary evil to pervade the world. Contemplation on this question has led to the argument from evil, which demonstrates that God with his specific

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

This does not make God perfectly good because he made humans able to freely choose and sometimes humans choose evil. If God were a perfectly good being then human’s free choices would always be for the good. This also concludes that God is not all knowing because he cannot control the free choices humans make (Mackie 210). A theist could argue that God doesn't create evil since humans freely choose evil but it cannot be avoided without depriving us humans of our free will. There is no way that God can limit freedom in any way and still provide significant moral freedom.

Evil is a concept that humans have developed to explain suffering and disaster. It is seen as the cause of suffering, Religious perspectives would argue that it is contrary to the will of their omnipotent being or predestination. The two types of evil are natural evil, evil not caused by humans such as tsunamis, and moral evil, evil caused by human such as rape and murder. However, this presents the problem of evil, presented by Epicurus; “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus, BC 341-270) This proved the inconsistent triad. If God is benevolent,

God cannot determine the outcome of our free choice. So either there is no omniscient god or we are created without free will and therefore are forced/unable to avoid doing evil. Again this shows that god is not benevolent, nor omniscient, therefore he is non-existent. Theists may argue the following reason for god to have granted humans free will. It is possible that god raised homo sapiens to rationality giving the gift of abstract thought, language and disinterested love. And so it is arguable that god gave us free will to allow for love, as free will is necessary for love. Although this may be one of many reasons that god granted us free will, it is one that we may understand. Free will is necessary for both erotic and platonic love. One may argue that evil is only trumped by love. And that the existence of evil, although in its masses is worth it for the sake of

fate or determinism and say this was all planned out from the beginning of time knowing some things in nature happen randomly--