Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Libertarian free will requires that God permit creatures to choose evil, making divine non-intervention a logical necessity, not an attribute deficiency.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
An omnipotent God could create beings with libertarian free will who never actually choose evil—possibility ≠ necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Presenting non-intervention as logically necessary rather than chosen obscures that God still ultimately permits evil, accepting responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many compatibilist accounts preserve meaningful freedom without requiring unguided choice, undermining the dichotomy this claim assumes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Genuine choice requires real alternative possibilities; if God prevents evil choices, creatures lack authentic agency over their decisions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A world with free creatures who sometimes choose evil is more valuable than one with unfree automatons, justifying divine restraint.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
God's omnipotence includes logical limits; creating free beings who cannot choose evil is contradictory, not a divine power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.