The Free-Will Argument Analysis

1284 Words6 Pages
The logical argument concerning the problem of evil stems from two propositions that seem difficult to hold true at the same time: there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God and there are great amounts of suffering and evil in the world. This argument concludes that since there is moral and natural evil in the world, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist since an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not create evil, or would at least seek to destroy it. To argue against this, the free-will defense is used. The free-will defense is successful as it provides a reason for moral evil, but it fails to address natural evil. However, it is still logically consistent to believe in…show more content…
Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will). The free-will defense is successful as it accounts for moral evil such as slavery, war, torture, genocides, etc., and since we have free-will and we are ultimately responsible for our actions, whether they are good or evil, there is no logical reason to blame God for the actions of…show more content…
Natural evil is not man-made, comes through no fault of our own, and is caused by outward, worldly forces; so an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would have no need to create natural evil. Tornadoes, earthquakes, diseases, etc. would be natural evils since they are not created by moral or immoral actions. According to the deist conception of God, God set the universe in motion and has not interfered since creation. It is then possible, that since God has not intervened in the world since the creation, that all of these things could have come through natural evolution and changes in climate and weather patterns. If God is not seen as a proximal cause for these events, and is instead viewed as a creator who set the universe in motion to be governed by natural laws and things like evolution, then it seems illogical to blame God for these types of events that follow natural law. Also, a most natural disasters have benefits to them: hurricanes replenish barrier reefs and help ocean productivity, floods bring nutrients to soil, causing it to be more fertile, and lightning helps maintain the Earth’s electrical balance. So, despite that some of these events may bring about pain and suffering, they could also have an, arguably, greater good to them as

More about The Free-Will Argument Analysis

Open Document