Free will Problem of evil

the problem of evil explained consequence of free will, ability granted god. free both source of , of evil, , free comes potential abuse, when individuals act immorally. people free decide cause suffering , act in other evil ways , states boyd, , make choice, not god. further, free argument asserts logically inconsistent god prevent evil coercion , curtailing free will, because no longer free will. explanation not address problem of evil, because suffering , evil not result of conscious choice, result of ignorance or natural causes (e.g. child suffering disease), , all-powerful , all-benevolent god create world free beings , stop suffering , evil.

alvin plantinga has suggested expanded version of free defense. first part of defense accounts moral evil result of human action free will. second part of defense suggests logical possibility of mighty non-human spirit (non-god supernatural beings , fallen angels) free responsible natural evils , including earthquakes, floods, , virulent diseases. scholars agree plantinga s free of human , non-human spirits (demons) argument solves logical problem of evil, proving god , evil logically compatible other scholars explicitly dissent. dissenters state while explaining infectious diseases, cancer, hurricanes , other nature-caused suffering caused free of supernatural beings solves logical version of problem of evil, highly unlikely these natural evils not have natural causes omnipotent god prevent, instead caused immoral actions of supernatural beings free god created. according michael tooley, defense highly implausible because suffering natural evil localized, rational causes , cures major diseases have been found, , unclear why anyone, including supernatural being god created choose inflict localized evil , suffering innocent children example, , why god fails stop such suffering if omnipotent.

critics of free response have questioned whether accounts degree of evil seen in world. 1 point in regard while value of free may thought sufficient counterbalance minor evils, less obvious outweighs negative attributes of evils such rape , murder. particularly egregious cases known horrendous evils, [constitute] prima facie reason doubt whether participant’s life (given inclusion in it) great him/her on whole, have been focus of recent work in problem of evil. point actions of free beings bring evil diminish freedom of suffer evil; example murder of young child prevents child ever exercising free will. in such case freedom of innocent child pitted against freedom of evil-doer, not clear why god remain unresponsive , passive.

another criticism potential evil inherent in free may limited means not impinge on free will. god accomplish making moral actions pleasurable, or evil action , suffering impossible allowing free not allowing ability enact evil or impose suffering. supporters of free explanation state that no longer free will. critics respond view seems imply wrong try reduce suffering , evil in these ways, position few advocate.

a third challenge free defence natural evil. definition, moral evil results human action, natural evil results natural processes cause natural disasters such volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. advocates of free response evil propose various explanations of natural evils. alvin plantinga, following augustine of hippo, , others have argued natural evils caused free choices of supernatural beings such demons. others have argued

• natural evils result of fall of man, corrupted perfect world created god or
• natural evils result of natural laws or
• natural evils provide knowledge of evil makes our free choices more significant otherwise be, , our free more valuable or
• natural evils mechanism of divine punishment moral evils humans have committed, , natural evil justified.

there debate regarding compatibility of moral free (to select or evil action) absence of evil heaven, god s omniscience , omnibenevolence.

free , animal suffering

one of weaknesses of free defense inapplicability or contradictory applicability respect evils faced animals , consequent animal suffering. scholars, such david griffin, state free will, or assumption of greater through free will, not apply animals. in contrast, few scholars while accepting free applies in human context, have posited alternative free creatures defense, stating animals benefit physical freedom though comes cost of dangers continuously face.

the free creatures defense has been criticized, in case of caged, domesticated , farmed animals not free , many of whom have historically experienced evil , suffering abuse owners. further, animals , living creatures in wild face horrendous evils , suffering—such burn , slow death after natural fires or other natural disasters or predatory injuries—and unclear, state bishop , perszyk, why all-loving god create such free creatures prone intense suffering. line of extended criticism of free defense has been if god powerful, knowing , loving, have actualized world free creatures without moral evil chooses good, full of loving-kindness, compassionate, non-violent , full of joy, earth monotheistic concept of heaven. if god did create heaven love, all-loving , always-loving god have created earth without evil , suffering animals , human beings heaven.