The Glass Castle When being put on this Earth, there is one of two options that can be made. To follow our fate and let life take us there, or chose the power of free-will. In Jeanette Walls’ memoir, The Glass Castle, the Walls family are faced with stimulating and challenging decisions that can greatly affect the rest of their lives ahead, depending on which path they chose. It’s all a matter of fate or free-will.
In the novel Slaughterhouse-Five the author begins with a struggle of remembrance of the things that were experienced while in Dresden but soon finds a way to explain through the eyes of Billy Pilgrim. Billy is introduced and recalls his time in Dresden much of which he spent abducted by aliens known as Tralfamadorians, the Tralfamadorians are described as having plunger bodies and have eyes that are in the palm of their hands. Along with having a physical difference from humans they also have different ways of how their society runs and their philosophical views. The input of the Tralfamadorians is a way for the author to question the idea of whether free will exists or not and challenges the idea for humans. The idea of free will is used
“The Problem of Evil” by Peter van Inwagen, is a series of lectures that that presents van Inwagen’s various responses to problem of evil. In this essay, I will present “the local problem of evil” (from chapter 6 of the book), the solution van Inwagen proposes for this problem, and my critique of his solution. “The local problem of evil,” according to van Inwagen, is the hypothetical response an atheist would have towards van Inwagen’s solution of “the global problem of evil” which is, “If god existed, then why is there so much evil in the world?” The argument of “the local problem of evil” is “If god existed then why are there specific horrors that occur in the world, like children dying in a horrific car crash?” The argument that is drawn
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
In theory, he thinks that if God exists then evil should not, but it does. So he creates and argues a theodicy to show that God and evil can exist at the same time. He comes up with the “Free Will Theodicy” which states that humans are the cause of evil, not God. The Free Will Theodicy discusses two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil.
Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right. In this argument, I take the stand that morality is what God wills it to
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
He also refers to the cosmological argument to show that God is an all-powerful being who created the universe out of nothing. Furthermore, he claims that suffering in the world is moral in the sense that suffering inflicted on innocents is genuinely evil. Without a God, there would be no objective morals, thus, evil proves God’s existence, as things would not be considered good or evil without a God (Craig, p. 126). In conclusion, evil proves God’s existence and thus the question as to why God permits evil does not work to disprove His existence.
My experience of writing this paper was relatively pleasant. I really enjoyed that the entire assignment was broken up into small pieces like the topics and references, media source and research section, and the annotated bibliography. Sometimes I can tend to procrastinate so it was nice being forced to submit small pieces bit by bit so the workload didn’t pile up and get me stressed out right before it was due. I feel like I really did well learning about my topic. Teen dating violence has been something that I haven’t really known a whole lot about.
Free Will in the Inferno Cantos V & XXXIII and Purgatorio Cantos XVII & XVIII ANALYSIS Love and Free will in the Inferno Canto V (Francesca) In the Inferno Canto V, the theme of free will is manifested through the topic of love. Francesca, being the first speaker and sinner in hell, first introduces love by showing her perceptions on the topic. “Love, that can quickly seize the gentle heart… Love, that releases no beloved from loving,” (Inf. 5.100-103)
In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will.
In Christian tradition, the existence of God is central to the religion and the practices and beliefs associated with it. In this tradition, God can be conceived of as an all powerful, immortal and transcendent being who governs and creates the world as it is known. During the Medieval Era Christianity dominated Europe, leading to an extensive amount of philosophical and scholarly works related to God and how to properly conceive of him. As a result, many philosophical topics and theories were brought under examination in an attempt to combine them with Christian ideologies and conceptions of God and the world. One of the many topics brought under consideration was free will.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
Fate, by definition, is the universal principle by which the order of things is seemingly prescribed. (Webster) Essentially, fate is events that are inevitable that we have no power to change. It is debatable that fate exists among everyone; however, humans are subject to making their own choices- free will. No matter what choices people make, they do not change our fate.
Humans have free will because in the everyday lives on an individual they are presented with multiple choices, none of which render the need for a divine power. Saint Augustine states this in the text that individuals are aware of the presence of God, but know they can voluntarily act on the own choices. However, God has the power of foreknowledge. This is because the Lord created everything, meaning he must be aware of what is yet to happen. Augustine again asserts in Book V that God cannot exist without the ability for him to know the future.
