Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Creating worlds without evil

Arminians assure us that the Arminian God is more loving than the Calvinist God. Yet Arminians also believe in hell, which doesn’t seem like a very loving way to treat your loved ones.

Their fallback is to claim that God has to take the bad with the good. God can’t make a world in which everyone freely chooses him.

But is that a plausible claim, even on libertarian assumptions? Although this article is specific to Molinism, it raises parallel questions for Arminianism:

HT: Paul Manata 


  1. From the piece:

    "Whatever we make of these possible answers to why God did not create an evil-free world".

    Pure blasphemy. God DID create an evil-free world. That it did not remain evil-free is not His fault.

    To even suggest God could have done better, is exactly like what the first people did: blame God. So Adam said: "the woman THOU hast given me"; and Eve said: "the serpent deceived me"

  2. Thanks for illustrating your inability to rationally examine the implications of freewill theism.

  3. Not only that, Holdon doesn't understand how the term 'world' is used in these discussions.

    Moreover, as Steve notes, the problem is whether he could have done better *given other beliefs* a system holds. If Holdon's reasoning were cogent, he just provided the determinist with a bullet proof theodicy!

    Exhibit #247 why it's a waste of time to discuss things with "Holdon."