Back to Blog
![]() In other words Plantinga shows that (1-4) are not on their own contradictory, and that any contradiction must originate from an atheologian's implicit unstated assumptions, assumptions representing premises not stated in the argument itself. Plantinga's free will defense begins by asserting that Mackie's argument failed to establish an explicit logical contradiction between God and the existence of evil. The argument from evil concludes that the existence of the orthodox Christian God is, therefore, incompatible with the existence of evil and can be logically ruled out. ![]() The logical argument from evil asserts that a God with the attributes (1-3), must know about all evil, would be capable of preventing it, and as morally perfect would be motivated to do so. Most orthodox Christian theologians agree with the first three propositions describing God as all-knowing (1), all-powerful (2), and morally perfect (3), and agree with the proposition that there is evil in the world, as described in proposition (4). God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect). ![]() Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory: Mackie, and to which the free will defense responds, is an argument against the existence of the Christian God based on the idea that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology. The logical argument from evil argued by J. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |