You have no items in your shopping cart.
ABSTRACT
The concept of freewill remains topical in philosophical discourses. Whether man, as a moral agent has been endowed with freewill is a problematic that has engaged the attention of various philosophers in heated debates and arguments, in an attempt to either deny the existence of man’s freewill or defend its existence. For the latter school of thought, it is freewill that makes man morally culpable for his/her actions, hence their actions can be acclaimed blameworthy or praiseworthy. The concept of freewill has been employed by some scholars to resolve the problem of evil, especially in relation to arguments pertaining to the existence of God, which is often presented as a theodicy. However, in contemporary times, the American Philosopher Alvin Plantinga in articulating his response to this overarching problem of evil postulates his defense of freewill which is different from a theodicy. Plantinga in his defense of freewill argued that it is logically impossible for God to create a world free of evil without taking away human freedom. This essay evaluates Plantinga’s postulation and in doing so, adopts an expository, historical, critical, analytic and evaluative method. Based on the analysis herein, we shall sustain that Plantinga’s defense of freewill is laudable as it resolves the problem of evil theoretically, conversely it does not do so practically because the problem of evil is bigger than logic.
