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.

Author: Goltile Sakora
Country: Great Britain
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 6 November 2018
Pages: 461
PDF File Size: 9.12 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.56 Mb
ISBN: 741-2-75407-136-3
Downloads: 63568
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Goltimuro

Find it on Scholar. But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state. Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other.

It seems clearly possible that whatever creatures God were to make in such a world omnipotene not have morally significant free will and that there would be no evil or suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. Science Logic and Mathematics. Tragedy and Redress in Western Literature: If answers no, then there are things he cannot do and he is not omnipotent.

Evil and the Many Universes Response. Let’s first consider a down-to-earth example of a morally sufficient reason a human being might have before maciie on to the case of God.

This article has no associated abstract. If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. Recall that the logical problem of evil can be summarized as the following claim:. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.

In evip, this is precisely the message that many philosophers took away from the debate between Plantinga and the defenders of the logical problem of evil. Combine this with above solution to 1 st order evil painwhich is necessary to 2 nd order goods sympathy, struggle against evil.

It would be ridiculous to give moral praise to a omnipotencd for putting your soda can in the recycle bin rather than the trash can, if that is what it was programmed to do. No times can be assigned to his actions. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question.


Logical Problem of Evil

Jones just allowed someone to inflict unwanted pain upon her child. In other words, whether there is immorality in either one of these worlds depends upon the persons living in these worlds—not upon God. However, it is not clear that human freedom requires the existence of natural evils like deadly viruses and natural disasters. And this conflicts with ordinary theistic view of omnipotence. It is important to note certain similarities between W 1 and W 4.

When someone claims 40 Makie x is impossible, what is the least that you would have to prove in order to show that 40 is false?

Mackie on the problem of evil

According to classical theism, the fact that God cannot do any of these things is not a sign of weakness. Mackie one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the mid-twentieth-century and a key exponent of the logical problem of evil has this to say about Plantinga’s Free Will Defense: He suggests that God’s morally sufficient reason might have something to do with humans being granted morally significant free will and with the greater goods this freedom makes possible.

So, the objection goes, even if Plantinga’s Free Will Defense explains why God allows moral evil, it does not explain why he allows natural evil.

It has not, however, been the only such response. Horrible things of all kinds happen in our world—and that has been the story since the dawn of civilization. Even though it is widely agreed that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense describes a state of affairs that is logically possible, some of the details of his defense seem to conflict with important theistic doctrines.

The Problem of Evil. Although sketching out mere possibilities without giving them any evidential support is typically an unsatisfactory thing to do in philosophy, o,nipotence is not clear that Mackie’s unhappiness with Plantinga is completely warranted.

Evil and Omnipotence

Problem of evil puts them in a much worse position. The Evidential Argument from Evil. And for that they must be free. Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:.

TOP Related Articles  QPRINTER PDF

Eleonore Stump offers another response to the problem of evil that brings a range of distinctively Christian theological commitments to bear on the issue. This is the best of all logically possible worlds because it includes the important second order goods, even though real evils 1 st order evils of pain and disease exist. The emotional pain of separation, shame and broken relationships are also consequences that first instance of moral evil.

Mackie’s last response, about God creating a world populated by people who always freely choose good, is one of my favorites. Statements 6 through 8 jointly imply that if the perfect God of theism really existed, there would not be an evil or suffering.

That certainly runs contrary to central doctrines of theism. However, I’m not quite so confident that they’ve been defeated. In order to answer these questions, let’s briefly consider what it would take for any response to the logical problem of evil to be successful.

According to this proposal, God is not ignoring your suffering when he doesn’t act to prevent it because—as an all-knowing God—he knows about all of your suffering. The question of whether God’s omnipotence is compatible with the claim that God cannot do the logically impossible will be addressed below.

Unlike Plantinga’s response to the logical problem of evil, omnipotecne is merely a “defense” that is, a negative attempt to undermine a certain atheological argument without offering a positive account of why God allows evil and sufferingHick’s response is a “theodicy” that is, a more comprehensive attempt to account for why God is justified in allowing evil and suffering. Related articles in Google Scholar. God is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Let’s figure out which of these worlds are possible.

Other solutions to the problem include John Hick’s soul-making theodicy. This brief discussion allows us to see that the atheological claim that statements 1 through 4 are logically inconsistent is a rather strong one. That is, that person would not be able omnipotenc choose any bad option even if they wanted to.