Alvin Plantinga. University of Notre Dame. Follow. Abstract. This book discusses and exemplifies the philosophy of religion, or philosophical reflection on central. God, Freedom, And Evil – Alvin Plantinga – Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. PAGE 18 IS MISSING. HERE IS THE MISSING. Alvin Plantinga is held by many to be the greatest living Christian philosopher, and has made immense contributions to various areas of.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||23 August 2015|
|PDF File Size:||18.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.75 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I thought the very basic argument that evil might exists because overall, it causes even more good, was already quite convincing.
God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga
Christian Living Grief and Suffering. Plantinga’s book is still a very interesting read and a good exercise in analytical reasoning, even if you don’t accept all of it’s premises and conclusions, which, I think, you don’t have to. Something is dreadfully wrong with our world. How would you go about finding a logically possible x? And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering.
They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory.
Logical Problem of Evil
Philosophers of religion have called the kind of reason that could morally justify God’s allowing evil and suffering a “morally sufficient reason.
Return to the Curley example. Alvin Plantinga University of Notre Dame. This was a good short-yet-complex philosophical work to read through over a weekend. Since the situation described by MSR2 is clearly possible, it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.
Jul 16, Derek rated it it was amazing. Eerdmans Publishing Company,p. He then digs into Anselm’s ontological argument and concludes that it is sufficient to show that beliefe in God is not irrational and against logic. He does say in the introduction that he will be focusing on the problem of evil on the atheist side, and the ontological argument on the theist side, but his treatment of the cosmological and teleological arguments may leave the reader with the impression that these are not robust arguments.
Let’s first consider a down-to-earth example of a morally sufficient reason a human being might have before moving on to the case of God. People deserve the blame for the bad things that happen—not God.
Plantinga is a true philosopher: She writes, Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes aovin a person’s satisfaction with himself. Summary of Doctor Strange: Social Theology Feminist Theology. I really need to research more into transworld depravity before I could give this book five stars, because I just couldn’t wrap my head around it while reading the Problem of Evil section.
The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other Many theists maintain that it is a mistake to think that God’s omnipotence requires that the blank in the following sentence must never be filled in:. Thus, some of those dissatisfied with Plantinga’s merely defensive response to the problem of evil may find these more constructive, alternative responses more attractive.
A pancreatic cancer patient suffers prolonged, excruciating pain and dies. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful. In the immunization case, Mrs. Dec 27, We said above that a set alin statements is logically inconsistent if and only if that set includes a direct contradiction or a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set.
Literature Analysis and Cri Added to PP index Total downloads 21, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 45 8, of 2, How can I increase my downloads? Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Similarly he rejects the cosmological and teleological arguments for God as inadequate. In a word, conceivability is your guide to possibility. Does it succeed in solving the logical problem of evil as it pertains to either moral or natural evil? Some theologians, in fact, would critique Plantinga’s arguments by pointing to the Bible. Since this is something that God could have done and since a world with free creatures and no evil is better than a world with free creatures and evil, this is something God should have done.
Any two or three of them evi be true at the same time; but evill is no way that all of them could be true.
God can forcibly eliminate evil and suffering as in W 2 only at the cost of getting rid of free will. Being upset that God has not done something that is logically impossible is, according to Plantinga, misguided.
There may be ways for Plantinga to resolve the difficulties sketched above, so that the Free Will Defense can be shown to be compatible with theistic doctrines about heaven and divine freedom. MSR2 represents a common Jewish and Christian response to the challenge posed by natural evil. But let’s be clear: The skeptic may be tempted at this point to say that Plantinga is biased and selective in his analysis, but what I think may surprise many skeptics is the rigor with which Plantinga treats the problem of evil.
Note – it is a purely philosophical discussion and isn’t going to be a comfort to plantingga in distress. To begin with, MSR1 presupposes the view of free will known as “libertarianism”: None of the statements in 1 through 4 directly contradicts any other, so rreedom the set is logically inconsistent, it must be because we can deduce a contradiction from it.
A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free and freely perform more good than evil actions is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. To evjl what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. An omnipotent deity could simply actualise a desired goal without needing to use suffering as a “middle man”. For Plantinga as should be for every philosopherthe arguments do not bend to prove God, God is revealed by virtue of the arguments.
This proof, known as the problem of evil, is logically valid, meaning that its premises lead to its conclusion.
Are you just saying “For all we know, this may be true”?