Similarities Between Dostoevsky And Swinburne
Ben Parker once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility". Mankind has tremendous power, and this power is called free will. Free will has been defined by many philosophers as the choices made with no ulterior motif, however, philosophers Frelor Dostoevsky and Richard Swinburne can both agree it involves the malicious or benign choices of mankind impacting one another. This great power of free will, has the potential to equally harm an individual as well as help them. Both philosophers published literary works to convey their own individual perspective of evil, and how free will plays a part in the presence of evil. Despite the misconceptions of God's omnipotence, the presence of evil within the world is a product of humans using
…show more content…
Ivan does not accept God's ethical system of "allowing" evil to occur, because he believes that God is omnipotent and has the power to stop it. On the other, Swinburne might comment by mentioning how Ivan uses the fallacy of ad populum by involving God when God has nothing to do with the choices people make; since God, like a good father delegating responsibility, gave us free will to use it for good, but humans are the cause for evil since they use free will to harm rather than help. I would rebuttal as to ask Ivan if he truly believes God allows evil in the world then he must also agree that there is no such thing as free will. With a divine being, being the cause of everything evil in the world, then us, humans, have no power or responsibility over the choices we make. Therefore, there is no purpose in rejecting God's ethical system since you are determined to obey his ethical system and you would have no control over your own actions just as everyone else. Lastly, Swinburne and I might conclude to say that Ivan has a biased argument due to his specific view on the suffering of children, as mentioned in the chapter Rebellion, and not the overall aspect of
Ivan does not accept God's ethical system of "allowing" evil to occur, because he believes that God is omnipotent and has the power to stop it. On the other, Swinburne might comment by mentioning how Ivan uses the fallacy of ad populum by involving God when God has nothing to do with the choices people make; since God, like a good father delegating responsibility, gave us free will to use it for good, but humans are the cause for evil since they use free will to harm rather than help. I would rebuttal as to ask Ivan if he truly believes God allows evil in the world then he must also agree that there is no such thing as free will. With a divine being, being the cause of everything evil in the world, then us, humans, have no power or responsibility over the choices we make. Therefore, there is no purpose in rejecting God's ethical system since you are determined to obey his ethical system and you would have no control over your own actions just as everyone else. Lastly, Swinburne and I might conclude to say that Ivan has a biased argument due to his specific view on the suffering of children, as mentioned in the chapter Rebellion, and not the overall aspect of