I would think not, and the reason I say this is because J.
That means that a set of statements is logically consistent if and only if that set does not include a direct contradiction and a direct contradiction cannot be deduced from that set. Many philosophers think so.Do people really need to die from heart disease and flash floods in order for us to have morally significant free will? In other words, 16 It is not possible for God and evil to co-exist. If something is omnipotent, it can do anything. The sense in which relative greatness requires relative smallness; why this is not a good way to understand the relationship between good and evil. Given the program running inside the robot and its exposure to an empty soda can, it's going to take the can to the recycle bin. The assumption behind this charge is that, in so doing, God could leave human free will untouched. Mackie one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the mid-twentieth-century and a key exponent of the logical problem of evil has this to say about Plantinga's Free Will Defense: Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. According to Edward Madden and Peter Hare , p. Was Plantinga's Victory Too Easy? One reading of the former objection is that evil is physically necessary for some goods; the present objection is that evil is absolutely necessary for some goods. However, the following solution that we will explore completely resolves the problem of evil without needing to sacrifice the belief in any of the three ideas.
If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. Could free will be the nth level good described above? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.
And for that they must be free. So, W1 is clearly possible.If God is going to allow people to be free, it seems plausible to claim that they need to have the capacity to commit crimes and to be immoral. This leads to an infinite regress. If it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering to occur, then the logical problem of evil fails to prove the non-existence of God. That certainly runs contrary to central doctrines of theism. Cancer, AIDS, famines, earthquakes, tornadoes, and many other kinds of diseases and natural disasters are things that happen without anybody choosing to bring them about. Since they were able to cope with these conundrums, they were successful and happy. Is this kind of situation really possible? They may all be false or some may be true and others false. Horrible things of all kinds happen in our world—and that has been the story since the dawn of civilization.