This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The Free Will Defense I. The Tender-Hearted Response The tender-hearted responses depend on challenging premises 4 and 5 of the standard argument, namely, 4. A world with the greatest possible surplus of good over evil would be a world devoid of evil. 5. An omnipotent God could actualize any world. By rejecting one or both of these premises, the tender-hearted theist is, in effect, arguing for some relevant limitation on what an omnipotent God could do. If we reject premise 4, we are suggesting that the range of possible worlds is narrower than we might have thought. Since whatever God can bring about must ipso facto be possible, any limitation on the range of possibility is also a limitation on the range of God's omnipotence. If we reject premise 5, we are very obviously placing limits on God's omnipotence, limits that are additional to the limits of the possible. II. Four Accounts of Free Will A. The compatibilist/soft determinist view. Free-choice is an extrinsic type, one that involves A....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course PHI PHI2010 taught by Professor Jorgerigol during the Fall '09 term at Broward College.
- Fall '09