on this post, I will take on a common argument made against theists (mainly Christians) and show what the free will defense is and how it successfully defends Christianity from these arguments.
Purpose: I want to be clear this is not an argument against atheism or prove theism true. this is a free will defense and thus is only meant to defend Christianity from atheist arguments.
Argument:
to start, here is a common format of an argument against God using the problem of evil:
1. if God is omniscient, he knows that there is evil in the world and knows how to prevent it.
2. if God is omnipotent, he has the ability to prevent evil.
3. if God is morally perfect, he wouldn't want evil in the world.
4. there is evil in the world.
5. therefore, 1-3 can't all simultaneously be true of God since 4 is true.
6. 1-3 are in the necessary nature of God.
conclusion: therefore the God doesn't exist.
the key premise in this argument is 5, in that asserting God wouldn't allow evil if he had those three attributes. all the other premises are uncontroversial. in order for a theist to refute this argument, they must show premise 5 is not necessarily true. the best way, in my opinion, to refute this argument is with the free will defense. before I get into that, I must properly define what moral evil is. there are many opinions on what it is, but since this is an inside argument against God it seems most appropriate to use the biblical definition. moral evil is the deliberate disobedience against God and his commandments. this in mind, the free will defense states that though it's possible for God to create a world without evil, he could only do so by eliminating free will. I will attempt to formulate an argument from the free will defense:
1. moral evil is the deliberate act against God and his commandments.
2. humans have free will if and only if they are given options and they can pick any options they are given without God preventing them from picking them.
3. if people are given a free choice of doing evil or not doing evil, there will inevitably be those who will choose evil.
4. God can't change 3 without taking away 2.
conclusion: Therefore, God could not create creatures with free will and without evil.
Objections:
1. God is omnipotent, so he should be able to do anything. why can't he then create a world with free creatures who don't do evil?-- the idea of omnipotence has generally been accepted of being capable of doing anything logically possible, and thus excludes the logically impossible. so if the act of creating creatures incapable of evil takes away their free will, then God can't create free creatures incapable of evil.
2. the idea of a world where everyone freely chooses not to do evil doesn't seem logically absurd. therefore it is possible for God to create free creatures without evil, therefore your argument is invalid.-- though this may seem like a reasonable objection, it fails to consider a few things. we aren't talking about a single variable, but a multitude of variables. if you considered a single person, you could come up with a multitude of experiences he has that allow him to choose what is good every time. however, this is just a single person experiencing things by himself. when you have a bunch of people, they often base their decisions off other people's decisions. if they see someone's choice, they may choose something different just because they want to see the outcome. so in a nutshell, it may be possible for a single person to freely choose good every time but not a large group of people yet alone the amount we have in our world. people who are able to choose differently will choose differently.
2a. why is it necessarily true different people choose differently?-- this is by nature of the definition of individual. if they are truly individuals, then they all have different wills. if they all have different wills, then they will necessarily have different actions to reflect those wills. some would involve expressing that individuality, which is why no matter how stupid the choice there is inevitably going to be someone who chooses it. with the amount of individual wills, it would be impossible none of them never choose to do evil.
2b. but God can choose what circumstances we are faced with, and can ensure we are only faced with circumstances he knows we will do what's right if we're faced with it.-- even if this were possible for everyone collectively, it would defeat the whole purpose of free will. sure, it would still exist, but they're not truly picking good over evil. they're picking what they like vs what they don't like. and it doesn't change the reality of the counterfactual. to illustrate this, i'll give an example: if Bob were faced with the choice of stealing something he wants, or not getting what he wants he would steal what he wants. this would be what we call a counterfactual. in a given circumstance A, result is B. now, if God were to ensure Bob never had a circumstance where he could either steal what he wants or not get it, it still wouldn't change the reality of what he would freely do in that circumstance. so though it may seem that God would eliminate evil by doing this, all he does is ensure evil doesn't surface but it would still exist in our hearts.
3. why is a world with evil better than a world without free will?-- because a world without free will would not only be without moral evil, but also without moral good. in order for someone to do what is right, they must make a choice to do so over what is wrong. without the option of choosing wrong, there is no right. it's like saying 'why don't we play games where everyone is a winner...' if there's no ability to lose, it defeats the purpose of winning. the same is true with moral good.
Objection: the idea of free will is inconsistent with God's omniscience, omnipotence, and divine plan.-- this is an objection I will return to later when I cover the subject of God, the nature of his omniscience and our free will.
Purpose: I want to be clear this is not an argument against atheism or prove theism true. this is a free will defense and thus is only meant to defend Christianity from atheist arguments.
Argument:
to start, here is a common format of an argument against God using the problem of evil:
1. if God is omniscient, he knows that there is evil in the world and knows how to prevent it.
2. if God is omnipotent, he has the ability to prevent evil.
3. if God is morally perfect, he wouldn't want evil in the world.
4. there is evil in the world.
5. therefore, 1-3 can't all simultaneously be true of God since 4 is true.
6. 1-3 are in the necessary nature of God.
conclusion: therefore the God doesn't exist.
the key premise in this argument is 5, in that asserting God wouldn't allow evil if he had those three attributes. all the other premises are uncontroversial. in order for a theist to refute this argument, they must show premise 5 is not necessarily true. the best way, in my opinion, to refute this argument is with the free will defense. before I get into that, I must properly define what moral evil is. there are many opinions on what it is, but since this is an inside argument against God it seems most appropriate to use the biblical definition. moral evil is the deliberate disobedience against God and his commandments. this in mind, the free will defense states that though it's possible for God to create a world without evil, he could only do so by eliminating free will. I will attempt to formulate an argument from the free will defense:
1. moral evil is the deliberate act against God and his commandments.
2. humans have free will if and only if they are given options and they can pick any options they are given without God preventing them from picking them.
3. if people are given a free choice of doing evil or not doing evil, there will inevitably be those who will choose evil.
4. God can't change 3 without taking away 2.
conclusion: Therefore, God could not create creatures with free will and without evil.
Objections:
1. God is omnipotent, so he should be able to do anything. why can't he then create a world with free creatures who don't do evil?-- the idea of omnipotence has generally been accepted of being capable of doing anything logically possible, and thus excludes the logically impossible. so if the act of creating creatures incapable of evil takes away their free will, then God can't create free creatures incapable of evil.
2. the idea of a world where everyone freely chooses not to do evil doesn't seem logically absurd. therefore it is possible for God to create free creatures without evil, therefore your argument is invalid.-- though this may seem like a reasonable objection, it fails to consider a few things. we aren't talking about a single variable, but a multitude of variables. if you considered a single person, you could come up with a multitude of experiences he has that allow him to choose what is good every time. however, this is just a single person experiencing things by himself. when you have a bunch of people, they often base their decisions off other people's decisions. if they see someone's choice, they may choose something different just because they want to see the outcome. so in a nutshell, it may be possible for a single person to freely choose good every time but not a large group of people yet alone the amount we have in our world. people who are able to choose differently will choose differently.
2a. why is it necessarily true different people choose differently?-- this is by nature of the definition of individual. if they are truly individuals, then they all have different wills. if they all have different wills, then they will necessarily have different actions to reflect those wills. some would involve expressing that individuality, which is why no matter how stupid the choice there is inevitably going to be someone who chooses it. with the amount of individual wills, it would be impossible none of them never choose to do evil.
2b. but God can choose what circumstances we are faced with, and can ensure we are only faced with circumstances he knows we will do what's right if we're faced with it.-- even if this were possible for everyone collectively, it would defeat the whole purpose of free will. sure, it would still exist, but they're not truly picking good over evil. they're picking what they like vs what they don't like. and it doesn't change the reality of the counterfactual. to illustrate this, i'll give an example: if Bob were faced with the choice of stealing something he wants, or not getting what he wants he would steal what he wants. this would be what we call a counterfactual. in a given circumstance A, result is B. now, if God were to ensure Bob never had a circumstance where he could either steal what he wants or not get it, it still wouldn't change the reality of what he would freely do in that circumstance. so though it may seem that God would eliminate evil by doing this, all he does is ensure evil doesn't surface but it would still exist in our hearts.
3. why is a world with evil better than a world without free will?-- because a world without free will would not only be without moral evil, but also without moral good. in order for someone to do what is right, they must make a choice to do so over what is wrong. without the option of choosing wrong, there is no right. it's like saying 'why don't we play games where everyone is a winner...' if there's no ability to lose, it defeats the purpose of winning. the same is true with moral good.
Objection: the idea of free will is inconsistent with God's omniscience, omnipotence, and divine plan.-- this is an objection I will return to later when I cover the subject of God, the nature of his omniscience and our free will.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
![[Image: downloader.php]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F198%2F459%2Fdownloader.php)
