A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
I need help from you guys to refute this....and when asked for why god gives importance to free will... he says
Free will, as such, is NOT fundamental. Its Quantum Mechanics roots is that which is fundamental. So, to say that god values Free will, itself, is flawed.
I don't why people come with Quantum Mechanics as if people understood it completely...
I think you should attack the very core of this discussion - does god even exist? And if he does, who created him/her & gave him/her the free will to create a world full of creatures with free will.
And if he goes the "god is omnipotent, and ever lasting, without a beginning or end, yada yada yada" route, ask him how can he think that way if he can't think of this universe without a creator? Why does he want to add another layer of complexity to the already very complex universe.
Platingia, himself, dismissed the compatibilist view as self-contradictory and implausible. Even if we subscribe to the compatibilist determinism, the problem of evil does not exists, for the reason that evil is seen as something to be "avoided", and if the "suffering" is deterministic, then there is nothing "real" about it. The pain type response is also deterministic, and need not be, then, causally related to "suffering".
Tell him to stop blurting out memorized arguments & start using some original thoughts.
I didn't mean we should just ask for evidence of god & end the argument at that. What I meant was to debate the existence of god and try to win the argument there. If you go deeper, its gonna be a crap-shoot.
And yeah, my way is better for use on uninformed, stubborn theists.
Plantinga's "God" fronts for murderers
The god of philosophers (since Parmenides) bears scant resemblance to the ill-tempered, immoral, death dealing misogynist splashed over the canons of the Big-3 Monster Theisms. There are no experts “on gods” or “on morality”. No philosopher can save "God" from "him"self. No need to waste time on pointless theological gamesmanship. Theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.
Without formal systems of rule-governed empirical method and rule-governed review, Science and Law would disappear. Only religion and mores easily survive in cultures without well-grounded methods for establishing knowledge claims. Science and Law operate successfully using Freud’s ‘reality principle.’ Mores and religion are cultural atavisms given over to paternalist social control and the principle of ‘wish fulfillment’.
There are no religions; only religious institutions manned by self-anointed god proxies -- priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, televangelists, xian thugs and murderers, "C" Street Family, Palin, Huckabee, Romney. They have no rational methods for discerning false from true. They offer only illogic (apologetics) and authoritarian demands (theo-fascism). They counsel intolerance and hatred, violence and murder as legal and godly.