Plantinga's "Free Will" defense contradicts Christianity

[John 6IX Breezy]

I've always viewed the "problem of evil," including all the omni- categories, as existing only in a self-contained philosophical bubble. I'm not sure they map very well to the narrative presented in scripture. Perhaps mixing the two only makes a mess because they're inherently separate.

[Fake Messiah]

I've always viewed the "problem of evil," including all the omni- categories, as existing only in a self-contained philosophical bubble. I'm not sure they map very well to the narrative presented in scripture. Perhaps mixing the two only makes a mess because they're inherently separate.

Problem of natural evil and other catastrophes is everyday human problem to which Bible is completely oblivious.

Even the smallest evils are punishment from God for person's/ Jews behavior. Thus the ancient Jews believed that if they suffered from drought, or if King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judaea and exiled its people, that these were divine punishments for their own sins.

The Biblev can not recognise the possibility that perhaps the drought resulted from a volcanic eruption in the Philippines, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded in pursuit of Babylonian commercial interests and that King Cyrus had his own political reasons to favour the Jews. The Bible accordingly shows no interest whatsoever in understanding the global ecology, the Babylonian economy or the Persian political system.

That's why the Bible is so childish because that kind of self-absorption characterises all humans in their childhood. Five-year-olds think they are the centre of the world, and therefore show little genuine interest in the conditions and feelings of other people.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Problem of natural evil and other catastrophes is everyday human problem to which Bible is completely oblivious.

Even the smallest evils are punishment from God for person's/ Jews behavior. Thus the ancient Jews believed that if they suffered from drought, or if King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judaea and exiled its people, that these were divine punishments for their own sins.

The Biblev can not recognise the possibility that perhaps the drought resulted from a volcanic eruption in the Philippines, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded in pursuit of Babylonian commercial interests and that King Cyrus had his own political reasons to favour the Jews. The Bible accordingly shows no interest whatsoever in understanding the global ecology, the Babylonian economy or the Persian political system.

That's why the Bible is so childish because that kind of self-absorption characterises all humans in their childhood. Five-year-olds think they are the centre of the world, and therefore show little genuine interest in the conditions and feelings of other people.

Are you sure? I find that although the bible does view death in general as the result of sin, it tends to discourage viewing natural disasters, sicknesses, or tragedies as punishment for sin.

"There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, 'Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV, Luke 13:1-5).

But I'm not sure I understand your issue with the absence of things like global ecology or Babylonian economy from scripture. Narratives have structure. Stories are confined to things that are relevant to the story. The bible has a story to tell and a point to make; it's not an encyclopedia. Even your own internal narrative constructs your identity by emphasizing certain memories and ignoring others; your mind is choosing which memories are relevant to your autobiographical story and leaving the boring stuff out.

[Ranjr]

You make the bible sound almost human.

I especially like the part where god flooded all the land for shits and giggles, not because of sin.  That's a much better story.

[The Grand Nudger]

God made a world where the issue of human salvation or damnation is played out. We have free will although that is not the only factor that determines our eternal fate. Predestination and grace are other factors, if factors is the right word. But given free will than moral evil is inevitable. If that is all Platinga is saying than, sure, God could not have given free will with one hand and eliminated human cruelty with the other. Not in this world anyway.  

Not in any world, in Platingas estimation.  It's impossible, simply not something that god can do.  

But then there is the pain not caused by human free will. I find claims that human suffering caused by illness or natural disasters will produce something positive in the future kinda dodgy. Like your faith will grow stronger or something like that. Maybe. Maybe not. People get bitter too. And then there is the issue of the pain of non human animals. In The Problem of Pain C. S. Lewis admitted to being stumped on this one. Non-human animals don't go to Heaven or Hell. That's the general view anyway. They just die. So pain can have no redemptive or spiritual value. 

My own personal view is pain in this world often does not matter. A lot of it is just random and meaningless.  Like other animals I avoid it. But it's temporary. It comes to an end. I think God could have created this world with a lot less physical pain. He could have created six thousands years ago and eliminated the long course of evolution which clearly involved a lot of physical pain. I don't think there is any logical impossibility in this. But He didn't.

So I'm on the side of those who do not think God created the best of all possible worlds.

Then, again, you reject Platingas argument.  This world is the best possible world that god could make, in his estimation. I find it difficult to believe this as well. Whether we're discussing moral or natural evil, there's no shortage of ways that lowly human worms like ourselves can see and effect improvement. It makes little sense, in light of that, to claim that this is the best possible world that an omni-god could make.

[Fake Messiah]

Are you sure? I find that although the bible does view death in general as the result of sin, it tends to discourage viewing natural disasters, sicknesses, or tragedies as punishment for sin.

And then the quote from the Bible

but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV, Luke 13:1-5).

I think you answered it yourself.

And indeed, that's why we still have prominent Christian voices blaming gays, atheists, non-Christians on earthquakes, floods, fires, and whatnot.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think you answered it yourself.

And indeed, that's why we still have prominent Christian voices blaming gays, atheists, non-Christians on earthquakes, floods, fires, and whatnot.

I think most people would understand the verses to be saying two things. The first is don't think calamities fall on people because they're sinners (and that none have fallen on you because you're a saint). The second is to not assume that because this is the case that sin will go unpunished, so repent. In short, bad things happen to good people, and that's not an excuse to be bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

Platinga focused more on moral evil. Not the bad things that happen as a consequence of earthquakes and the like, but the bad things that happen as a consequence of human decisions. So, for example, because I choose to rape and pillage - some toddler somewhere suffers. It's moot point to say that this is no reason for a toddler to be bad - toddlers are not thought to be competent moral actors in the first place.

More fundamentally, the problem for the omni god are those same things we take to be instructive with regards to it's scheme to punish sin. If sin should be punished, then gods sins should be punished. Even more bluntly, the god envisioned by christians should not be guilty of sin at all..and yet.....


To this end, Platinga imagines that god simply can't make a better world, discharging him of any responsibility for the state of this one. He did his best. There can be no world in which moral actors are meaningfully free, in which moral evil doesn't exist. This assaults our observations of the world, and even our own actions. The police, for example, don't do much to prevent a freely willed decision to murder...-but they do fancy themselves as at least trying to prevent the actual murder - the moral evil that follows from this decision. God, as envisioned by Platinga, is somehow less competent than a police officer. Somehow not capable of doing even the simplest things that come to mind when we consider how this world might be improved (whether the subject is natural or moral evil).

This is why it's referred to as a successful defense. If a person insists that god is incapable of changing x, y, and z, then it's no fault of gods that he doesn't do something about x y and z. He might want to, because omni-benevolent and all that jazz....he might see all of this and think "fuuuuuuuuck" - but he can't. It's not within his ability.

[ColdComfort]

You make the bible sound almost human.

I especially like the part where god flooded all the land for shits and giggles, not because of sin.  That's a much better story.

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground ..."  RSV

But you say " not because of sin". Now you could have looked this up yourself and easily discovered you are wrong.. Why would someone not bother to do that? Would I be far off in suggesting that getting your facts right is far less important then sending yet another smug and sarcastic post? Makes you feel good about yourself doesn't it.?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Comfort...lol. John, a christian, above, told the ignorant atheists of this board "not because of sin"..which you'd have known, if you looked up just the posts in this thread.

Get your own facts straight, and work with him on his.