Might-counterfactuals, transworld untrustworthiness and plantinga's free will defence

Abstract

Plantinga's Free Will Defense (FWD) employs the following proposition as a premise: OTD. Possibly, every essence is transworld depraved. I argue that he fails to establish his intended conclusion because the denial of OTD is epistemically possible. I then consider an improved version of the FWD which relies on OTU. Possibly, every essence is transworld untrustworthy. (The notion of transworld untrustworthiness is the might-counterfactual counterpart to Plantinga's would-counterfactual notion of transworld depravity.) I argue that the denial of OTU is also epistemically possible and, therefore, that the improved FWD fares no better than the original at establishing the compatibility of God and evil.