Evil And Omnipotence Argument Analysis

This paper will discuss J.L. Mackies logical argument from evil and how in actuality, Alvin Plantinga’s whole argument is an attempt to delegitimize Mackie’s argument. Mackie’s main argument is that these three concepts cannot exist in the world and all be true; evil, gods omnipotence, and gods omnibenevelonce. Mackie’s argument hinges on the idea that evil is real, in which case one of the other two claims about god has to be false. First, one has to understand why evil, omnipotence, and omnibenelovence cannot all exist simultaneously.

The question that was posed in this week’s discussion had me pondering not only what I felt about the statement, “God is good,” but also what the book referred to as a prerequisite that adhered to the statement. First I would like to take a look at what the author of the book refers to as “good” when referencing God. J.L. Mackie’s principle states, “It follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent things exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Davies 209). This statement made by Mackie would suggest that if there was a good omnipotent “thing,” evil would not exist. Mackie believes that since evil exists, then there must not be a God. Mackie also points out a contradiction

If that premise is true, and we recall that God being omnipotent can do anything that is possible, it must follow that God could have and would have made humans without the ability to cause evil if he

The second portion asks if he is able but not willing. This would make him malevolent. God is supposed to be omnimalevolent, all loving and all good. A God who is able to stop all evil but doesn’t is clearly not loving then, correct? Christians would respond that this apparent ignorance from God is actually human sin and not God turning his back on us.

Because if god is wholly he would never do any evil not under any circumstance. Also this again contradicts the fact that God is omnipotent if he can’t create without evil. Mackie also debunks " The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil."( Mackie pg. 206) This one Mackie quickly disproves by simply saying that it’s a restatement of a previous theory. Mackie believes it’s a restatement of “Evil is necessary as a means to good” thus having the same fallacies. The final theory Mackie debunks is " Evil is due to human freewill” (Mackie pg.208). Mackie believes this to be the best solution and answer for evil. The idea behind this is maybe evil has no connection to god but rather human being with free will. This then raises another question why would god give free will to people if it would lead to evil thus again contradicting that god is wholly good. He says 1. Free will is good and would be worse to lack it. 2. Its impossible for god to grant someone free will and to guarantee evil will never be done. Mackie concludes by saying there is no valid solution of the problem. That

In J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” the author presents an argument detailing why belief in a both omnipotent and wholly good God is contradictory to a God who allows evil to exist. He utilizes this philosophy to show that God doesn’t exist due to the problem of evil. As Mackie’s delineates in his first paragraph, “I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.” (p. 100) Mackie discusses

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

Following this line of thought, the next logical step for our human minds to pursue would seem to be that in order for God to experience Himself as the all-consuming good, there had to be something called the all-consuming evil. This is a flawed argument for there is only one deity we recognize as God. God is all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be. The existence of evil cannot be used as a pathetic excuse for God to be able to justify His existence.

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

The problem of evil questions the nature of God and threatens his status as a figure worthy of worship. Surely human beings would not wish to worship a God that is neither all good nor all-powerful? The figure we call God is seen to be entirely perfect and flawless in every way. The problem of evil also questions God’s omniscience, in respects that he is all knowing. If God is omniscient then he must know the harm that evil does and the suffering it will cause. The attributes in question are the essence of the nature of God and without them he becomes more like a human than a God. If any of God’s characteristics are omitted, he

There are three forms of the Argument from Evil, the first being the most simple and the third version being the most complex, and therefore the most difficult to refute. All three versions begin with the same three premises, argument points, and all three come to the same conclusion. The Argument from Evil states: If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being existed, then there would be no evil. There is evil.

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

Another way to approach what is meant by evil being an absence of good is by employing Platonic ideas. According to Plato’s theory of forms, all that exists is somewhat of a shadow of God. Imagine a line that divides the divine world from the earthly. Plato called the divine world which he placed above the line the noumena and the earthly world which he put below the line the phenomena. He taught that the noumena is perfect and that the phenomena is imperfect, but also good and praiseworthy. Basically, Plato believed that everything that exists is a reflection of God. Furthermore, the phenomena is corruptible while the noumena is incorruptible. Plato also said that corrupting something means making it less like its noumena form and less good. Corrupt things are not evil. For example, one cannot affect “treeness,” or the noumena form of a tree, by chopping down a tree. Moreover, a tree stump is less of a reflection of the noumena form and less good than an actual tree is, but it is not evil.