A simpler free will defence

Otte (Philos Phenomenol 78(1):165-177, ) and Pruss (Faith Philos 29(4):400-415, ) have produced counterexamples to Plantinga's (The nature of necessity, ) famous free will defence against the logical version of the problem of evil. The target of this criticism is the possibility of universal tr...

Descrizione completa

Salvato in:  
Dettagli Bibliografici
Autori: Bernstein, C'Zar (Autore) ; Helms, Nathaniel (Autore)
Tipo di documento: Elettronico Articolo
Lingua:Inglese
Verificare la disponibilità: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Pubblicazione: 2015
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Anno: 2015, Volume: 77, Fascicolo: 3, Pagine: 197-203
Altre parole chiave:B Free Will
B FREE will & determinism
B Free Will Defence
B GOOD & evil
B Libertarianism
B Plantinga, Alvin
B problem of evil
B God
B Necessity (Philosophy)
Accesso online: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descrizione
Riepilogo:Otte (Philos Phenomenol 78(1):165-177, ) and Pruss (Faith Philos 29(4):400-415, ) have produced counterexamples to Plantinga's (The nature of necessity, ) famous free will defence against the logical version of the problem of evil. The target of this criticism is the possibility of universal transworld depravity, which is crucial to Plantinga's defence. In this paper, we argue that there is a simpler and more plausible free will defence that does not require the possibility of universal transworld depravity or the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. We assume only (a) that libertarianism is possibly true and (b) that God's existence is consistent with the existence of free agents who never go wrong. We conclude the paper by explaining how our defence may be able to succeed without assuming (a), in a way that is consistent with compatibilism.
ISSN:1572-8684
Comprende:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-015-9512-7