How Does Plantinga's Free Will Defense REALLY Work? (Dr. Daniel Speak)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- 0:00 Intro
0:56 What is Mackies logical problem of evil argument against gods existence?
5:29 what is a defense according to philosophical discussion?
8:46 what did plantinga aim to show with his free will defense?
12:23 walk us through the dialectic of stage 1
24:35 walk us through the dialectic of stage 2
41:45 what were some of the objections that were raised against the free will defense?
45:22 where does this leave us? What is the conclusion?
In this interview, I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Speak to summarize chapter 2 of his book linked below on the Problem of Evil.
www.amazon.com/Problem-Evil-K...
Please consider becoming one of my patrons. Go to
/ theanalyticchristian
Fore more resources on Christian philosophy & theology, go to
www.theanalyticchristian.com - Розваги
I really liked this episode, I’m very glad Dr. Speak is coming back
Would have loved a video like this when I first came across Plantinga's argument when I was in high school 7 years ago!
Great Video!
I think I misunderstood what Plantinga was meaning by transworld depravity. I had thought before that he was saying that for any world with a free being, one of those free beings will commit some evil (which seemed to me to implicitly deny that ought implies can, since there is something that free being ought to do, despite it not being possible for them to do so in that moment.)
Hearing Daniel articulate it here, it sounds like Plantinga is making the point that it won't be up to God what a free creature does, since, there's always some possibility that creature does something wrong, not under God's control.
I still worry though how to square the FWD with Plantinga's molinism, because, it seems obvious that there are some possible worlds wherein no free creatures does anything wrong (in order to retain 'Ought implies can'), and, according to molinism, God knows which worlds those are, and can somehow actualize those particular worlds in order to have a strong sense of providence. In which case, if God's omnibenevolence motivates him to prevent all evils, it'd seem like God'd be motivated to use his middle knowledge to pick out one of the worlds where every free creature does what is good, and just create that one.
There can be a strictly possible world where no creature does anything wrong. But, that doesn't mean that there is any feasible world where all creatures do no wrong, since in any given world one or more creatures do wrong in that world. So, it could be given the defense, that God picked the best of all the feasible worlds.
First of all, you're also assuming that God would want to pick out a world in which no one sins over every other world. Second, one reason why God might not actualize such a world is that most free creatures choose to sin. In our world, there doesn't seem to be anyone who is actually blameless save for children. Perhaps God could make such a world but there'd only be 10 people alive at a given time or maybe it isn't possible to make a world with free creatures that do no wrong.
Would you label the individual(s) who watched an atrocity that they could stop without harm to anyone as being good? I wouldn't, which is why I considered those claiming a God notion around me to be lying - at least before I understood the concept falsehood.
The core issue being that there is no "thinking" thing being shown to do anything other than humans and various creatures of the planet. So, why is a God notion being evoked in anything?
This just goes downhill as one understands the long parade of God claims humanity has made up.
So, I am not surprised with ANY argument against or for being rationalized when it is the case that there is nothing being shown, since one can construct anything for or against when one's appeals don't require an appeal to reality.
I'm disappointed that the problem of heaven qua problem of evil didn't come up.
It seems to me that the "Mackie world" objection is quite powerful. Another term we may use for a "Mackie world" is Heaven - a perfect world, of no evil and suffering, with free creatures.
This is a necessary theistic belief, and therefore, the response given to the "Mackie world" objection, wouldn't just lead to idea that God couldn't create a better more perfect world, but that God can't create Heaven - because there is always at least one creature that could be less than perfect per 37:00
Otherwise, if the theist is to maintain belief in heaven, this is to maintain a belief in a "Mackie World" - and so then the logical POE would prevail. Because one of the necessary theistic beliefs is that God can(and will) create a perfect world of no evil and suffering containing creatures with free will.
Hello Eric. This interview was intended to be a brief overview. But, I’ve done entire interview on just the problem of heaven. Here’s the link.
ua-cam.com/video/h39rQd3xAnI/v-deo.html
@@TheAnalyticChristian
Awesome! Thanks for the link, I still have the fourth installment of this series, but will be sure to check it out.
Appreciate the content.
Can evil exist if Naturalism is true? Is the concept of evil coherent on Naturalism?
Seems like it is.
@@quad9363 I was referring to the existence of natural evil. Can Nature be evil if Naturalism is true? What does it even mean to be evil? Is a high wind evil or fire evil?
@@les2997 it depends on if you attribute motive as an essential part of the definition of evil. If so, then natural disasters aren’t evil because there is no conscious motivation behind the harm they cause.
But, I would argue that death is evil (the Bible seems to say as much) even though death has no motives. So I think you can make an argument that natural evil is still evil even from a naturalistic perspective because evil does not need a conscious motivation as a basis.
Of course it is. A naturalist definition of evil wouldn't be that different from one a theist would adopt. It would include human and animal suffering, along with apparent injustice, and any number of other things we (theists and non-theists) generally regard as undesirable or harmful. The only additional item a theist might add to the concept of evil is disobeying God.