Free Will Theodicy Essay

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

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

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,

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

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

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

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

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

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

How could an all powerful, and morally perfect God, allow evil to exist? I argue that from a logical perspective, a PKM God and evil cannot coexist. I will also refute against claims that evil may be present for good intents, as well as giving examples of the harm it causes in real world circumstances, and how a powerful, knowing, and morally perfect God would not allow such evils to exist.

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

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.

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

“Mama was my greatest teacher, a teacher of compassion, love and fearlessness. If love is sweet as a flower, then my mother is that sweet flower of love”. Family is supposed to be the one thing in life that offers you love and, comfort. Above all parent’s first instincts are to love their kids and do anything to protect them, but sadly that was not the case for Robert Harris. Harris was sentenced to Death Row because he murdered two teenage boys after he stole their car with the intention of committing a robbery. To make an attempt to understand what could have led Harris to commit these crimes and therefore to the death sentencing, I will give you a brief summary of his past.