Evidence · Case 06 · Problem of Evil
The Gospel of Matthew, the great commandment
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Sources
Matthew 22:37-38, NASB
Objections & responses
- “You can’t command a response that is merely built in” is false. Parents command children to love their siblings; the command shapes a disposition rather than presupposing a free choice each time.
The point is fair as far as it goes, but notice what it concedes: even a command that shapes a disposition presupposes that the disposition could fail to form, which is all this exhibit needs. A command addressed to a being incapable of not complying would be empty. Whether love is a momentary free choice or a freely cultivated disposition, the command makes sense only if refusal is possible, and refusal being possible is what the free will defense rests on.
- Free will explains moral evil at best. It says nothing about tsunamis, childhood cancer, or animal suffering over millions of years, which is where the evidential problem of evil actually bites.
Correct, and the scope limit should be clear. The free will defense addresses the logical problem (is God compatible with any evil at all) and the moral-evil half of the evidential problem. Natural evil requires other responses: that a regular, law-governed world is necessary for free agents to act meaningfully (a world where fire never burned would be a world where no choice had consequences); that some natural evil results from non-human free agency, a view held by Augustine and Plantinga; or that natural evil belongs to a creation that is provisional and awaiting completion. Each is contested, and none is a knockdown.