J.L. Mackie's Evil and Omnipotence Essay

The beauty of the problem of evil is its simplicity. David Hume displays the problem well by questioning the existence of God and evil. For, if both God and evil exist, God must either be “willing to prevent evil, but not able” or “able, but not willing”. Hume shows that there seems to be a problem with God and evil coexisting. For, with an all good entity

“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 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

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

God allows evil to exist because evil is absorbed by greater good. (John Mackie). Specifically, if free will exists then people have the choice to either choose good or evil. The benefit of having free will outweighs the disadvantage of the possibility of the evil option being chosen, and thus allows for the existence of evil, supporting the reality of god. If we are free to choose, even though we may choose evil, the evil is absorbed by the benefit of free will. John Mackie presented the absorption argument, which was used to argue for the theist reply to the problem of evil.

The second argument, the Supralapsarian theodicy states that maybe God created evil to achieve his

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

with some evil in it. Better? Why would God being so good and concerned about

Moving on to the second premise: in order for God to be classified as both omnipotent and wholly good, He would take the option to always make men choose good in their free will. Mackie’s thought process in believing this is linked with the definitions of omnipotent and wholly good in theism itself. These indicate that in order to be omnipotent, one must have no limit to what one can do, and in order to be wholly good, one would eliminate evil. What Mackie is

In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk.

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.

At this point in Mackies work he is reaching the end of the introduction and is going to proceed to his next section, 'Adequate Solutions.' The Adequate Solutions section is used by Mackie to show how some individual's adopt solutions to the problem of evil that will conclude by proving inconsistent. In this section Mackie first exposes that there is a large number of adequate solutions to the problem of evil. He then provides examples of some of these solutions. One of the adequate solution examples that he states is that, some individuals use the term 'omnipotence' while severely restricting its meaning. Mackie then provides another example of how some believe that evil is merely a lack of that which is good, and that evil which opposes good does not exist. Mackie uses these examples of Adequate Solutions to show that if one adopts any of these solutions, then one will not be able to full realize the problem of evil.

My aim is to attempt to prove the point of two general division in the problem of evil, and initially clear up the confusion of the dichotomy between the probabilistic problem (how plausible is God's existence given evil) and the problem Leibniz deals with, the logical problem (pure possibility).

The problem of evil is as ancient as humanity itself. Since the dawn of man, thinkers, philosophers, religionists and practically every human being who have suffered at the hands of evil have pondered this enigma, either as a logical-intellectual-philosophical or emotional-religious-existential problem. The preponderance of evil as a reality in human existence, and