m, they must be beings that are capable of freely loving Him and following His will without coercion. Unfortunately, the logic of the argument fails when approached from certain angles. The free will defense provides a good explanation as to why moral evil exists in the world, but in order for the free will defense to work, it must adequately explain not only moral evil, but natural evil as well. This is where the free will defense is weakest. Some might argue that there are evil forces in the world that cause natural evil, and because of this God is not responsible for these evils. There is no proof, however, that such evil forces exist, so this argument fails. Others argue that humans indirectly cause natural evil, for example, floods caused due to deforestation. However, this argument fails too, because there are countless other natural evils that are not caused in any way by humans, like hurricanes or tornados. Natural evils that exist in the world are not the result of human action, but that of nature, which is attributed to God. The free will defense essentially fails to free God of the responsibility of natural evil; therefore, the free will defense cannot adequately answer the problem of natural evil since natural evil is not the result of human action. The free will defense is not entirely infallible when applied to moral evil either. One philosopher who has found flaw in this argument is John Mackie. Mackie’s argument is that, “If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?” Religion's response to this argument is that if God had done this then it would still limit humanity’s free will by not allowing humanity the ability to choose the bad in addition to the good. Mackie responds by saying that the church contradicts itself when it says that free w...
