Proving Mackie's Problem Of Evil In The World

The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional

In a world of chaos, he who lives, lives by his own laws and values. Who is to say that the death of millions is any worse or better, for that matter, than injuring a cockroach. And in the case of an existing power in the form of God, who is presumed to be all which is good, presiding and ruling an organized universe, why then does evil exist? The prosaic response of “without evil, there is no good” no longer holds any validity in this argument as the admitted goal of good is to reach an existence without evil. So even if a God does exist, I think it is fair, at this point, to say that he is the embodiment of both good and evil. And if humoring those who would answer the previous question with the response that there can be no good

By assigning evil a role, Leibniz’s answer to The Problem of Evil makes itself more believable. Because evil has a purpose, it has a reason to occur. Since every evil is necessary to achieve a greater good, evils are responsible for bringing good into existence. Without evil present in the world, good has no meaning or purpose. On the other hand, Perry’s argument also meets the challenges of the opposing view.

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.

In a world of chaos, he who lives, lives by his own laws and values. Who is to say that the death of millions is any worse or better, for that matter, than injuring a cockroach. And in the case of an existing power in the form of God, who is presumed to be all which is good, presiding and ruling an organized universe, why then does evil exist? The prosaic response of "without evil, there is no good" no longer holds any validity in this argument as the admitted goal of good is to reach an existence without evil. So even if a God does exist, I think it is fair, at this point, to say that he is the embodiment of both good and evil. And if humoring those who would answer the previous question with the response that there can be no good

Continuing off this idea of God being the greatest idea that can be thought, and how the thought of God is in everybody 's mind, Anselm mentions “ If that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in the mind alone, this is the same than that- which- a- greater- can- be- thought is than that-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in both the mind and reality” (Anselm 88). This proof that is given to us by Anselm is helping to show that God is something that is an idea in everybody 's mind, but existing only in the mind is not enough. As said before Anselm states that no one can think of anything greater than God, but if God was something that was only an idea in people 's’ heads then there would be ways for people to think of things greater than God. Though if God existed outside of someone 's mind, in reality, then it would be impossible for anyone to think of anything bigger than God and because God is something in which nothing greater can be thought, he must exist in both the mind and reality.

Humans simply cannot know all there is to know in order to conclude God and evil are incompatible. This popular argument attempts a total refutation of LPE; however, it does not directly address LPE, choosing rather to sidestep the immediate issue and attack human cognitive limitations. The argument, while successful in sense, lacks satisfactory closure to LPE and opens an epistemological Pandora’s Box, where everything we know becomes suspect. Consequently, this approach is not a strong one.

By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which one expresses an eternal and infinite essence (1def6)

LEIBNIZ’S CONCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL BY OKOJIE E. PETER epo4escriva@yahoo.com MAY 2013 INTRODUCTION For many centuries, philosophers have been discussing evil, how it exists in the world, and how this relates to God. The discussion on evil and its relations to us is not an easy one though. It is commonly called the problem of evil. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is generally regarded as an argument for atheism. The atheist contends that God and evil are incompatible, and given that evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. The problem is generally used to disprove God’s existence by showing an inconsistency between an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God; and the existence of evil. Philosophers over the centuries

In Theodicy, Leibniz attempts to argue the good nature of God and the universe. Leibniz’s effortful arguments aim at reminding the cynical contrarian of the abundance of good that exists in our lives. I tend to agree with his overarching point – the universe is filled with goodness, and no amount of evil innately presupposes that a Creator is without power - though there are some oversights with which he speaks that I must point out.

evil creates or brings good. Yet, if there was only good we would not have to

How we view the presence of God and evil depends on why we believe the world was created. If man is a fully created creature then the world was created for him to live in, a comfortable, pleasant place. Our world is obviously filled with suffering, danger, hardship of all kinds, so an all-powerful God could not have created it. To Christians the world is not a paradise where one can experience the maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain. The world is a place of “soul making” or person making. As we try and understand the challenges of our lives, and our environment we may become “Children Of God”.

The resources the believer has available to him to understand this infinitely good God are his mind and his experiences. The mind and all its reasoning abilities can be trusted to arrive at some understanding of God, as our minds are but one of God's creations. We all experience evil of some sort, whether it is egregious evil or tolerable evil. For the most part, none of us have experienced an evil that is comparable to the worst evils this world has known - perhaps the most evil being the Holocaust. This evil inflicted abundant

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

If we are living in a world that was created by a perfect being, why are there imperfect aspects? If this ultimate being or creator (I will say God for purpose of this paper) is fundamentally good and moral, and is even unable to create evil, then how did evil come to be in the life we are living? According to the problem of evil, if there is a God, there is no evil. But because there is evil in the world, the conclusion can be drawn that there is no God (Sober). At first glance, this argument is perfectly logical. However, this claim may be reversed. For if one is indicating that there is evil in this world, they are believing that there has been a “line” drawn somewhere to separate the good and the bad. This “line” is known by many, if I dare say all, yet nobody actually determined what was considered bad. The reversal of the problem of evil can lead to the argument of God and evil both existing in the same world. But, it seems as though if there were a perfect God, there would be no evil in the world, as He would not be able to create it or He would be moral enough to see it happening and stop it. Can we really live in a world that contains evil, which was created by a perfect God that is not capable of creating evil/capable of stopping it? This question may even lead into the following question, assuming that God and evil do exist together: if there is a God, why is there (allowed) evil in the world? However, before we are even able to begin to understand why there is