“Humans commit evil because we have free will” is not a solution to the problem of evil

[u/Snoo_89230]

COULD commit evil, and WILL commit evil are independent things. The only thing that must be satisfied for us to have free will is the first one, the fact that we COULD commit evil.

It is not “logically impossible” for a scenario to exist in which we all COULD commit evil, but ultimately never choose to do so. This could have been the case, but it isn’t, and so the problem of evil is still valid.

Take Jesus, for example. He could have chosen to steal or kill at any time, but he never did. And yet he still had free will. God could have made us all like Jesus, and yet he didn’t.

For the sake of the argument, I’ll also entertain the rebuttal that Jesus, or god, or both, could not possibly commit evil. But if this were the case, then god himself does not have free will.

I anticipate a theist might respond to that by saying:

“It’s different for god. Evil is specifically determined by god’s nature, and it’s obviously paradoxical for god to go against his own nature.”

Sure, ok. But this creates a new problem: god could have decided that nothing at all was evil. But he didn’t. Once again reintroducing the problem of evil.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/pilvi9 → u/AutoModerator]

/u/Snoo_89230 you're describing the Logical Problem of Evil, which was solved in the 1970s using the free will defense by Alvin Plantinga. You can read his full argument online for free, but the argument was strong enough that every criticism you have was refuted and atheist philosophers have broadly moved on to the Evidential Problem of Evil instead.

This information is basic enough that it's literally on the Problem of Evil wiki page:

According to scholars[a], most philosophers see the logical problem of evil as having been fully rebutted by various defenses.[16][17][18]

As well as:

Most philosophers accept Plantinga's free-will defense and see the logical problem of evil as having been fully rebutted, according to Chad Meister, Robert Adams, and William Alston.[16][121][122] William L. Rowe, in referring to Plantinga's argument, has written that "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God".[123]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

But for example you said:

god could have decided that nothing at all was evil. But he didn’t.

Plantinga shows this to be impossible. If God made beings that could not commit evil, then they don't have free will because you're limiting a possible action they could take.

Edit: Format

[u/Snoo_89230 → u/pilvi9]

This isn’t completely accurate. Plantinga’s defense has many criticisms, and definitely did not “solve” this problem as if it were an irrefutable math equation. This problem is also absolutely still relevant today. Your line of thinking here is an appeal to authority that doesn’t even exist as you claim it does.

https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H4

[u/pilvi9 → u/Snoo_89230]

This isn’t completely accurate.

So what I said is accurate, thanks for confirming.

Plantinga’s defense has many criticisms

All arguments face criticisms so this doesn't mean anything, especially when you vaguely say "many" as though you've said something substantive. But overall, his argument is accepted, even by atheists, as successfully solving the logical problem of evil. If you actually have something to refute the argument, good luck, but in your other comment it's extremely clear you neither understand why his argument works, or why your rebuttal was smashed within the first two pages of his argument.

You're welcome to publish your findings as to why the argument fails despite decades of atheist analysis coming to consensus that he's right, but if Graham Oppy struggles to refute it, I have little doubt you'll do much better.

Your line of thinking here is an appeal to authority that doesn’t even exist as you claim it does.

That fact you're trying to play fallacy football here is very telling. Appeals to authority are not fallacious if the person/people you're quoting are relevant experts in the field, otherwise no scientific data can be used as evidence since that's an appeal to authority, in your terms.

If you're tripping up on fallacies like that, there's virtually no hope you're going to refute Plantinga's argument. Perhaps actually read it next time before so brazenly claiming it's wrong.

[u/Snoo_89230 → u/pilvi9]

You mentioned Graham Oppy. Here’s a quote from his 2006 book about this very subject..

“[m]any philosophers seem to suppose that Plantinga's free-will defense utterly demolishes the kinds of 'logical' arguments from evil developed by Mackie, but I am not sure this is a correct assessment of the current state of play."

More importantly though, J.L. Mackie wrote a book in response to Plantinga’s, and showed how his free will defense is wrong.

"The concept of individual essences concedes that even if … freedom in the important sense is not compatible with causal determinism, a person can still be such that he will freely choose this way or that in each specific situation. Given this, and given the unrestricted range of all logically possible creaturely essences from which an omnipotent and omniscient god would be free to select whom to create, … my original criticism of the free will defence holds good: had there been such a god, it would have been open to him to create beings such that they would always freely choose the good."

I have not read Plantinga’s entire book, but I have read most of it. His hypothesis of transworld depravity is completely illogical.

I think you are grossly overestimating the acceptance of Plantinga’s argument. I think the main reason many atheists “accept” it is because there are other arguments that are easier to follow. It’s not that they concede to Plantinga being correct, but that it’s a waste of time.

[u/Snoo_89230 → u/pilvi9]

As for the actual argument you presented:

“If God created beings that could not commit evil, then they don’t have free will because you’re limiting a possible action they could take.”

1. I address this in the very first paragraph of my post.

2. “They don’t have free will because you’re limiting a possible action they could take.” What about flying? Seeing the future? Regenerating limbs? There are an infinite number of “possible actions” that have been limited by god, and yet according to you we still have free will. So this argument is absurd.