In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
There are three claims that the majority people are committed to and agree upon if God exists; God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, and God is perfectly
…show more content…
God is someone who encompasses all good things which means he must be a good God, and a good God would not want evil in our world. Humans having free will is a claim brought up by Stump to show Plantinga’s “Free will defense,” to possibly answer the problem of evil. Plantinga believes the response to the logical problem of evil is, the possibility of having free will and using it for good rather than evil, is a value that has the potential to outweigh all the evil in the world. Stump revises this claim because it leaves the existence of evil mysterious and does not fulfill the entirety of the response to the evidential problem of …show more content…
Although this is not a guarantee to come from evil, it is what leads most down the righteous path. Being able to will for God to fix their will is what allows God to intervene and fix someone’s defective free will. The fixing of defective free will by a person freely willing that God fix it is what Stump believes to be the foundation of a Christian solution to the problem of evil.
My goal is to not disprove God’s existence, or to disprove that humankind can live in Union with God. My hope is to argue that our will which wills what it ought not to will is limited. I believe that every day we have the equal opportunity to make choices, both good and evil, and we are able to do this because of our free will. I am not arguing that our defective free wills do not exist, I want to argue that they are restricted.
My first claim is, if God is all knowing, he knows where we will end up in life. Secondly, I believe when our consciousness comes into existence, God knows if we go to Heaven or Hell. Thirdly, no matter what choices we make throughout our lives, the end result will always be what it was meant to be before our existence. Therefore, no amount of free will during our time on earth, will change our end result which means our free will is
In our reading on Discourse of Free Will, we get a good idea of the opinions both Erasmus and Luther had on the topic of free will and the how it correlates with God’s grace. Once we look beyond the back and forth debate of this text, we will begin to look at their theological opinions on free will separately to find a better understanding and formulate our own opinions on this commonly debated topic.
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.
This topic is one that has had my curiosity piqued for the last few years and is one I have made a point of discussing with many people over the course of that time. I have heard many different viewpoints, some who have been adamant for God's omniscience and knowledge of the future and others who have presented compelling arguments for free will. Most, however are of a third category who have come to grips with the fact that our mere brains cannot understand the workings of God and are content to wait for an answer until they are able to ask them themselves if/when they get to Heaven. I myself hold this latter idea to be a good fallback, but am restless in my pursuit for an answer. For neither the deterministic nor the liberalist perspective seem to have me convinced for it seems to me like both of these beliefs leave you in a dire catch-22: if you insist on complete freedom, you limit God's knowledge; but if you insist on God's knowledge, then you limit humanity's freedom; neither of which leave my mind at rest in who I know God to be and what His scripture has revealed to us in His creation of humanity.
...aintain that God may have an idea of where he wants you to end up in life in it up to you to choose the correct steps to get there. The choices we make help decide the path we take in life the only thing we have no choice in is where we end up after our journey here on earth is complete.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
In this essay, Walter T. Stace writes about how the existence of free will is not a real problem, that a lot of people may not believe in free will because they do not have the correct definition of it, but if they
...onditions: Since God is all-knowing, the multiverse can exist within God’s omniscience. God is not all-controlling, this allows mankind to have free will. The multiverse exist though human choices. My initial proposal to the argument of free will and omniscient was relied on necessary true, and this coincided with Nelson Pike’s explanation. This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God. Although, my second proposition is not supported Pike’s essay, but it is inspired by Boethius’ theory of human free will, which based on the condition necessity. Combine with the idea of the multiverse, this allows human to have free while still within the boundary of God’s omniscience. We are living in an age of constant changes, and new hypothesis will develop as we gain more knowledge on the ultimate reality.
To conclude, both Pereboom and Kane come to two very distinct settlements on the debate in question. Both of these philosophers have different beliefs on how we should assess and approach the conceptual ideas of free will. Each position is constantly under scrutiny as philosophers and scientists alike, attempt to decipher and dismiss the multiple theories that have developed over the years. Furthermore, with so much emphasis placed on this particular debate, many people even begin to associate free will with the possibility of an existing higher power.
.... Stump states that we should always ask for good things by way of petitionary prayer so that good things will occur in our world. If Stump’s claim is correct, then two scenarios could come into play. If God has the power to put the world in a better state than it already is, but we, humans, aren’t sending him requests by way of petitionary prayer, God can either choose to put the world in a better state than it already is or he can choose to not change the state of the world at all. The consequence of God making the world better is the infringement of the human free will. On the other hand, if God chooses not to make the world better because of the lack of petitionary prayer, human free will is left intact but the world is not made better.
Lewis writes, “If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having”
The divine command theorist’s presumed critique of the divine will theory is twofold: first, what would happen in an instance in which the command and the will of God are not expressing the same thing? If God’s commands are his only way of communicating intent, but his commands are not perfect reflections of his intention, then how can human beings possibly know what actions are morally mandatory or prohibited? Second, in such an instance, what is the point of a command if not to communicate God’s will? The divine command theorist would charge that the point of a command under the divine will theory becomes arbitrary, and theists altogether reject the notion that God ever acts arbitrarily.
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
It is impossible to taste the sweet without having first tasted the sour. This is one of the many lessons found within Genesis 2.0 and more specifically the story of Adam and Eve. It is also from this twisted tale of betrayal and deceit that we gain our knowledge of mankind?s free will, and God?s intentions regarding this human capacity. There is one school of thought which believes that life is mapped out with no regard for individual choice while contrary belief tells us that mankind is capable of free will and therefore has control over hisown life and the consequences of his actions. The story of Adam and Eve and the time they spent in ?paradise? again and again points to the latter as the truth. Confirming that God not only gave mankind the ability to think for himself but also the skills needed to take responsibility for those thoughts and the actions that they produced.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
Nature is complicated. It includes many different sorts of things and one of these is human beings. Such beings exhibit one unique yet natural attribute that others things apparently do not—that is free will.