Religious Studies 44 (4):433-444 (2008)
The free-will defence (FWD) holds that the value of significant free will is so great that God is justified in creating significantly free creatures even if there is a risk or certainty that these creatures will sin. A difficulty for the FWD, developed carefully by Quentin Smith, is that God is unable to do evil, and yet surely lacks no genuinely valuable kind of freedom. Smith argues that the kind of freedom that God has can be had by creatures, without a risk of creatures doing evil. I shall show that Smith's argument fails – the case of God is disanalogous to the case of creatures precisely because creatures are creatures
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Plantingian Theism and the Free-Will Defence.Erik J. Wielenberg - 2016 - Religious Studies 52 (4):451-460.
Similar books and articles
Aquinas and the Unity of Christ: A Defence of Compositionalism. [REVIEW]Jonathan Hill - 2012 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71 (2):117-135.
Freedom and the Free Will Defense.Richard M. Gale - 1990 - Social Theory and Practice 16 (3):397-423.
Divine Authority and Divine Perfection.Mark C. Murphy - 2001 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):155-177.
Divine Determinateness and the Free Will Defence.David L. Paulsen - 1980 - Analysis 41 (3):150 - 153.
Are Omnipotence and Necessary Moral Perfection Compatible? Reply to Mawson.Wes Morriston - 2003 - Religious Studies 39 (4):441-449.
Divine Perfection, Axiology and the No Best World Defence.Robert Elliot - 1993 - Religious Studies 29 (4):533 - 542.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #87,053 of 2,178,174 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,174 )
How can I increase my downloads?