Swinburne Vs Swineburne

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?, she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

I never think about whether I have free will or not before . Every time I made a decision, I took it for granted. I thought what I thought was right and I did not doubt my decisions. Because it was my own decisions. I was confident about my decisions, which did not mean that I did not contemplate; I thought about things outside my mind but not my ability to think freely and act freely. I In terms of free will, there is a dispute between determinists, metaphysical libertarian, and compatibilists. Determinists states that people have no free will as there is a cause and effect relationship between two event, while metaphysical libertarian argues that people do have free will because they feel free to make a decision by following their will. With

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will. Despite this, because of reason and what God is envisioned to be, I agree with conclusions that Aquinas has made.

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God” (Muncaster – Religion Lecture, 2016). Meanwhile, Christianity states there is only one god oppose to other religions that state the opposite. Due to the various amounts of moral disagreements between religions, it makes it quite difficult to believe in universal truths as everyday we encounter contradictions that exist within religions in explaining the meaning of good and

Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without God.

The problem of evil has been a major concern in the human race with various attempts being made to reconcile the belief in God with the existence of evil in this world. The Christian conception of God as supremely good and powerful has made the problem of evil to be very difficult simply because such a being will make the world a better place than it is by preventing evil from causing pain and suffering to humanity. Both Christianity and Judaism face a great challenge to solve the issue of evil and its existence because of the impact of evil that the holocaust caused on millions of people. Scholars have devoted their time to account for the horrifying events that took place during the holocaust by examining different theodicy

In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254). In theory, he thinks that if God exists then evil should not, but it does. So he creates and argues a theodicy to show that God and evil can exist at the same time. He comes up with the “Free Will Theodicy” which states that humans are the cause of evil, not God.

The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not. Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,

247) considers two solutions proposed for Hume’s argument. He writes, “One way that is frequently used is to maintain that what is commonly called evil is only an illusion, or at worst only the ‘privation’ or absence of good.” Nagel disassembles this proposition, noting in any case the suffering and misery are real; thus, this argument is insensitive to human suffering. The second proposal is, “the things called evil are evil only because they are view in isolation; they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in relation to the rest of creation.” Nagel concludes, if this is true, what specifically is the greater good? It is not sufficient to state some great may come about because of

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

Swinburne states that humans were made by God with a predisposition to be moral and help out the natural world (181). Even though we have free-will, God persuades us to choose good more easily, as we can see the consequences of natural evils if we choose not to lend a hand. A theodicist thinks that we are influenced in that way because it would be wrong to be ignorant in occasions when the world needs as much aid as it can get (182). We would just be contributing to the wrongdoing, and would not be growing morally. This is one way God could be creating virtuous beings, while still these allowing these beings to have

My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection. Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive.