Mackie begins the article by saying that he thinks that all the arguments for God’s “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. (12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, .. such as Anthony Flew and J. L. Mackie have argued that an omnipotent God. IV.—EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE. By J. L. MACKIE. THE traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers.
|Published (Last):||13 March 2007|
|PDF File Size:||18.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.87 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From 9′ through 12’it is not possible to conclude that God does not exist. An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.
The logical problem of evil claims that God’s omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness would completely rule out the possibility of evil and that the existence of evil would do the same for the existence of a supreme being. An earthquake kills hundreds in Peru. Kant on Reflection and Virtueby Melissa Merritt. Is this kind of situation really possible? The survey included the question “If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, what would you ask?
What Plantinga would really like to see is a stick that is not as long as itself. The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. Moral evil, they continue, includes both moral wrong-doing such as lying, cheating, stealing, torturing, and murdering and character defects like greed, deceit, cruelty, wantonness, cowardice, and selfishness.
This orthodox view of heaven poses the following significant challenges to Plantinga’s view: Although much of the evil in this world results from the free choices people make, some of it does not. In particular, he cannot do the logically impossible.
As a perfectly good God, he also feels your pain. Recall that the logical problem of evil can be summarized as the following claim:. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful. The Nature of Necessary. According to classical theism, the fact that God cannot do any of these things is not a sign of weakness.
For my own part, though, worries about the metaphysical compossibility are my primary concern here. Let’s first consider a down-to-earth example of a morally sufficient reason a human being might have before moving on to the case of God.
Evil may contribute to goodness of whole in which found. This question raises what philosophers call “the problem of evil.
Logical Problem of Evil
As an all-around response to the problem of evil, the Free Will Defense does not offer us much in the way of explanation. There is a morally justifying reason for God to permit evil He could prevent, a reason we could not know of or, do not know ofand He permits evil for that imnipotence, and evil results Seems to mackis the apparent conflict.
Mackie rejects claim that any quality must have a real opposite. Rejecting a or b. He can create a world with free creatures or he can causally determine creatures to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong every time; but he can’t do both.
Instead, Hick claims that human beings are unfinished and in the midst of being made all that God intended them to be. But then the actualization of a world W containing moral good is not up to God alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of W would do.
Suppose a gossipy neighbor were to tell you that Mrs. Find it on Scholar. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. Can an omnipotent being make things which he omnjpotence subsequently control? Since MSR1 and MSR2 together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and moral and natural evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil.
ex-apologist: Notes on Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence”
However, they reveal that some of the central claims of his defense conflict with other important theistic doctrines. Many theists answer “Yes. Because if one answers yes, then he is no longer omnipotent. If something is bigger than something else then there has to be something smaller than something else too.
They reasoned that there must be more to the problem of evil than what is captured in the logical formulation of the evul. Grave – – Mind 65 According to orthodox theism, all of the following statements and many more like them are true.
Existence of pain and disease make possible sympathy, benevolence, heroism, and struggle to overcome these evils. But then it seems that God’s actions could not carry any moral significance.
People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so.