I posted this on reasonablefaith.org (I doubt it will even be approved by the moderator). I figure I'd post it here as well. I typically don't post on this forum because it's no fun when everyone agrees - I tend to post on the religious sites. But I'd like to hear what people think as I haven't heard it before. If others have said it, klet me know.
Something has always bothered me about Plantinga's Free Will defense regarding the 'Problem of Evil', which to me is the most devastating argument against a theological God. Plantinga claims evil and a good/loving God can co-exist, as the enabling of free will requires evil and a greater moral good could result from such free will. But such a rational is clearly contradicts Christianity. Let's ignore the fact even the statement itself invalidates God (it implies there are unchanging laws to which even God must subscribe to - ie, free will requires evil). Just consider:
1) The Christian God has directly killed millions of people
2) He has ordered the killing of millions more
3) He aids his people with storms, plagues, and various other phenomena
4) He sends his Son to save people that otherwise would not be
5) He cures some diseases, raises the dead, feeds the hungry, and so forth
6) Heck, he EVEN makes sure there is enough wine at a party he attends
Clearly, the Christian God is WILLING and DOES violate the free will doctrine. Plantinga's defense only makes sense as long as God NEVER interacts with the universe. But according to the Bible and Christian theology, this happens constantly, even for something as simple as a party needing more wine.
Thus, although Plantinga's defense may be philosophical sound, it contradicts Christian theology - and therefore is invalid when used to defend Christianity.
Something has always bothered me about Plantinga's Free Will defense regarding the 'Problem of Evil', which to me is the most devastating argument against a theological God. Plantinga claims evil and a good/loving God can co-exist, as the enabling of free will requires evil and a greater moral good could result from such free will. But such a rational is clearly contradicts Christianity. Let's ignore the fact even the statement itself invalidates God (it implies there are unchanging laws to which even God must subscribe to - ie, free will requires evil). Just consider:
1) The Christian God has directly killed millions of people
2) He has ordered the killing of millions more
3) He aids his people with storms, plagues, and various other phenomena
4) He sends his Son to save people that otherwise would not be
5) He cures some diseases, raises the dead, feeds the hungry, and so forth
6) Heck, he EVEN makes sure there is enough wine at a party he attends
Clearly, the Christian God is WILLING and DOES violate the free will doctrine. Plantinga's defense only makes sense as long as God NEVER interacts with the universe. But according to the Bible and Christian theology, this happens constantly, even for something as simple as a party needing more wine.
Thus, although Plantinga's defense may be philosophical sound, it contradicts Christian theology - and therefore is invalid when used to defend Christianity.
