free will defence

Quiz by sjdbc
Last updated: May 8, 2022
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedMay 8, 2022
Times taken3
Average score55.0%
Report this quizReport
Enter answer here
 / 131 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
god has given up what?
control over human actions
in order to?
bring about a greater good
by giving up control, what has God given humans?
free will
what can humans therefore make?
their own decisions
and are responsible for?
their own actions
so they can develop as?
moral agents
however, this alone is not enough to allow us to?
so this is why ---- exists?
so we develop good qualities like? (1)
pain is the?
stimulus for development
but while pain can cause us to develop good qualities, we could also develop?
negetive qualities
such as? (1)
we must be placed in situations that require us to make?
the price of free will is therefore the existence of?
moral evil
as genuine free will includes the permission, opportunity and ability to commit?
unspeakable acts of evil
those who defend free will have 2 things to prove, that is is not possible to have?
free will and not moral evil
and that the results of having free will are?
worth the price
who presents one of the best examples of the free will defence?
JL Mackie
who was an ?
what was he originally attempting to do to the free will defence?
disprove it
in his sarcastically titled book?
the miracle of theism
Mackie's main reason for thinking God does not exist is?
the problem of evil
he constructs his defence, and then does what to it?
rejects it
but his original defence provides the clearest example of how?
god could co exist with evil
Mackie creates how many orders of good and evils?
first order goods include? (1)
for example, someone reading a particularly good book is in a state of?
first order good
first order evils include? (1)
for example, someone who has been broken up with is experiencing?
first order evil
if we come across someone in the state of first order evil, two reactions are open to us, the first being that we can ?
reduce their misery
by being ? (1)
the second being that we can?
exacerbate their misery
by being? (1)
we can similarly reduce or increase someone's happiness that came from their first order good with our?
therefore, kindness, love, generosity etc. are?
second order goods
and envy, jealousy, greed etc. are?
second order evils
second order goods exist to?
maximise first order good and minimise first order evil
seocnd order evils exist to?
maximise first order evil and minimise first order good
maximising good or evil is therefore ?
our choice
the third order good is?
as it allows us to choose between second order ?
good or evil
so it teaches us to?
love the good
god is therefore ---- in putting evil in the universe?
as it teaches us to be?
morally responsible
however, Mackie condemns this argument as?
because he says it is logically possible for a person to ?
make only good choices
so God could have created humans to exclusively make?
free good choices
but, God did not, so either God?
is not omnipotent
or is not?
so Mackie's conclusion from this is that?
god does not exist
who refuted jl mackie's defence?
alvin plantinga
he argues there is no possible world where God could have created humans to always make?
good free choices
forcing someone to chose freely is an?
so in order to be free to choose, there must be?
multiple options
in order to disprove Mackie, he must prove that it is logically impossible that God could have created humans to?
always freely chose good
he must also provide a logically possible reason as to why?
god allows evil
this reason does not have to be true, only ?
logically possible
Plantinga claims God allows evil to exists for two?
morally sufficient reasons
the first explains?
the logical problem of evil
the second explains?
natural evil
MSR1 - he argues that free will has?
tremendous value
and enables humans to?
form meaningful connections
and do what out of choice?
good deeds
God cannot eliminate?
all pain and suffering
without also eliminating?
the greater good of free will
what is the example give in a modern context?
the pain of a vaccine
for the greater good of?
In MSR1, Plantinga assumes the view of free will known as?
meaning that although some aspects of human existence are?
determined by science
humans nevertheless have a degree of free will, so can be held?
morally responsible for their actions
this is the view that ----- is false
casual determinism
so we can make choices that are?
genuinely free
libertarian free will is ?
morally significant
as it people are morally responsible for their decisions and can be?
held accountable
Plantinga constructs 3?
possible worlds
God could have?
PW1- god creates people people with morally significant free will, and does not?
casually determine right and wrong
as a result, there is?
evil and suffering
this world is logically possible, as it is ?
the one we live in
PW2- god creates people?
without free will
God determines?
right and wrong
every situation
therefore there is?
no evil and suffering
this world is logically possible, but the people are?
moral robots
PW3- god creates people with free will
god casually determines right and wrong
there is no evil and suffering
these statements are?
logically incompatible
meaning this world is?
logically impossible
so the free will defence is ----- as Mackie claimed
not incoherent
MSR2- Plantinga also must provide a?
reason for natural evil
since it is not caused by?
human free will
Plantinga's MSR2 is that God allowed natural evil to enter the world because of?
adam and eve
as punishment for their?
most philosophers view this as?
as it relies on the biblical story being?
which is viewed widely as a?
mythological narrative
however, Plantinga does not have to provide a true explanation, only a?
logically possible one
therefore Plantinga is ---- in refuting Mackie's claim that the free will defence is incoherent
can the FWD account for natural evil?
it is caused by the?
forces of nature
not by?
for example, we can try to avoid?
building in flood zones
but it will not stop them?
however, the FWD can to some extent account for natural evil
god cannot stop all natural disasters, at is would?
prove he exists
if we knew God existed, we would never be?
as our actions would always be aiming to?
please God
natural evil could also help?
develop second order good
as many people suffer as a result of natural evil
for example, the 2010?
haitian earthquake
which caused ---- deaths
300 000
may allow people to send aid and become more?
strengths of the free will defence
Plantinga successfully refutes Mackie as ---- are logically possible
MSR1 and MSR2
strength - plantinga is right that
pw3 is impossible
as even an?
omnipotent being cant do the logically impossible
strength- natural evils bring about second order good, which are seen as?
higher goods
strength - establishes key principle, that a world with free creatures is?
more valuable
than a world?
without them
without freedom there is no?
and no ?
real happiness
weaknesses- although it is --- does not make it -----
logically coherent true
weakness - it relies on a ------ of free will
libertarian account
however this account cannot be?
weakness- has no response to the ?
evidential problem of evil
which is concerned with?
pointless evil
a well known example of this is given by the philosopher?
william rowe
who uses the example of a ?
caught in a ?
forest fire
this problem is made worse because of God's?
No comments yet