The DDS solution presupposes that God cannot will otherwise than the good, but divine omnipotence as standardly construed entails God could have willed differently, reintroducing arbitrariness.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Could have willed differently(as used in discussions of free will and God's nature): The ability to have chosen or desired something else instead; the freedom to make an alternative choice.
DDS solution(as used in philosophy of religion): A specific answer to a philosophical problem about God's freedom and goodness, developed by philosophers David, Davis, and Stump (the initials stand for their last names).
Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted): Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
Reintroducing arbitrariness(as used in philosophy of religion): Bringing back the problem that God's choices would seem random or baseless, even though God is supposed to be perfectly good.
arbitrariness(Hegel's distinction between animal passion-driven behaviour and rational human willing): Willing whose content is not a product of genuine freedom, contrasted with rational self-determination
divine omnipotence(Reframing of omnipotence in response to the objection that necessity limits God): The supreme power of God's will over being, understood not merely as unrestricted agency but as the ground of logical and ontological necessity itself

1 topic