Peter Van Inwagen's Defense To The Argument Of Evil

2124 Words9 Pages
Isabella Torres Philosophy November 18, 2015 The argument from evil In this paper I am presenting Peter Van Inwagen’s defense to the argument of evil. Not only am I discussing his defense but in detail what standard problems are present and also how his defense is satisfactory to an individual as myself. The problem of evil is the argument against where evil comes from and why it exist in our everyday lives. There are so many occurrences where evil is present and causes horrendous events in the world. Many wonder why the existence of evil is present in our society. This argument also relates to the existence of God. Creating challenging questions to the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all around image of a good God. Arguing…show more content…
This ability of portraying free-will is uncontrollable in many respects, “ This last feature of rational beings, free choice or free will, is a good. But even an omnipotent being is unable to control the exercise of the power of free choice, for a choice that was controlled would not be free”(32). It is not up to the individual to ask whether or not they can be given a free choice because then that would defeat the purpose of an individual having the ownership of free-will. Peter Van Inwagen also goes to say that the free-will defense that is presented in a more sophisticated form has more interesting things to extend on, with regards to the vast amount of evil that is prominent in the world and the evil that is not caused by humans. From these objections can also arise a loose version of more points to the free-will defense. For there to be a world where creatures are significantly free, then there is no guarantee that evil will not be present in the world. Creatures who are given free will, cannot be determined to not do things that are morally right. There is no way to create a guaranteed chance that evil will not exist in a world where human kind has free will. Both objections sounding very similar both reflect as well to…show more content…
In this defense he expresses what it would be to live when free-will and determinism co-exist together. This would mean that as a being to be able to do something it would consist of both natural laws and the past. The future would consist of laws of nature governing us but, in reality the laws would not be laws. The meaning of all of this is that a person would be able to achieve something that she or he would in fact not be able to achieve. Peter was unable to come to a conclusion to this defense but later adopted the idea that if an individual was faced with choosing between X and Y, if he saw more of a reason to side with X he would not disagree with Y but merely understand and reconcile with Y. Peter Van Inwagen would just defend X more in the

More about Peter Van Inwagen's Defense To The Argument Of Evil

Open Document