The Argument Of The Logical Problem Of Evil

Some say, “Good cannot exist without evil”. Mackie replies to this saying if good is not allowed to exist without an evil counterpart we put a limitation on God. Therefore God is not omnipotent, it creates a non-contradiction fallacy. A person could argue with the example of redness, if something is red we would have to know what non-redness is, otherwise we would not notice that it was red in the first place. Like evil if evil did not exist we would not know what good is. The problem with this is, does it matter if we know if good exists or not? If God could have made people to exist to be all good, why didn’t he? Mackie believes this to be evidence for if there is a God he is not wholly good. Maybe, “Evil is necessary as a means to good” this would mean God is bound by casual laws, inferring that the rejection of an omnipotent God would only suffice this

In monotheistic Christianity, God is omnipotent, that is all powerful and wholly good. Mackie argues that due to there being evil in the world, a contradiction exists. He offers up two more premises stating that good is opposed to evil (i.e. good eliminates evil), and that an omnipotent being has no limits in what they are capable of. Mackie then tries to solve the problem of evil. A solution he proposes is that human free will creates evil. This example is problematic because it goes against the premise that God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful, He should be able to ensure that humans always do the right thing. Another solution Mackie considers is that the universe is better with some evil than it could be without it. However, a good God that is omnipotent would be able and willing to create good without evil. Throughout many examples, Mackie proves that all of his solutions are inconsistent with one of the five premises even with removing one. His argument concludes that since evil exists, God cannot exist and therefore, life after death is not

A universe that contains some evil is better than a universe that contain no evil. While it is hard to prove Mackie’s problem of evil as completely true, it is not hard to understand his stance on counterparts. Mackie explains that every object in life has a counterpart and without that counterpart the object would not exist. The world would not know sweet without sour, or red without blue, etc. They are codependent upon each other for their meaning and purpose. Same goes for good and evil. The world could not have good without evil existing. God cannot be a wholly good God without having some form of evil in the world.

Mackie’s rejects “free will” solution to the problem of evil questioning God’s omnipotence. He sets out the Paradox

Given that evil and suffering exist within the world, there cannot exist an omnipotent, all-loving, perfect, ontologically separate God.

God is all-powerful. God is just. These are some the most well known statements about God. Yet, they pose an obstacle to why evil exists in this world. Natural evil began in the garden when Adam and Eve sinned. The result was pain in childbirth, toil in working the ground, and enmity between Satan and mankind. However, Elmer Towns adds, “The actual origin of evil was not initiated on an earthly scene, but within the glories of heaven. Man was tempted by an external force. Although this does not make him any less guilty, it does suggest to us that evil was present in the universe prior to Genesis.” Moral evil began when Lucifer proclaimed he would be like the Most High. Both moral and natural evil have their roots in free will. Because God is love, He did not make every creature a robot worshiping Him and carrying out His will. Thus Satan had a choice in heaven to submit and Adam and Eve in the garden had the choice to obey or disobey. In both instances free will was exercised and the consequences are still seen today as mankind continues to exercise his will. Demarest summarizes, “Humankind after the fall suffers extensive spiritual deprivation. Although the image of God in man survives (Gen. 9:6), reason has lost its soundness (2 Cor. 4:4), the will no longer is free to choose God and the good (John 8:34), and sinners are spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14) and dead (Eph. 2:1, 5). Once able not to sin, the unregenerate now are incapable of not

Mackie starts of his work by saying that thus far the arguments made for god’s existence has been faulty at best. but that is no reason to not believe in god. He then goes on to say philosophy is a double edged sword. Philosophy can both argue for god’s existence but can also criticize god’s existence. Mackie then goes on to say that he believes that there is a contradiction he states “God is omnipotent and God is wholly good; and Yet Some evil exists.” (Mackie pg. 200). Mackie believes that if something is omnipotent it can do anything thus vanquishing evil forever. And if something is wholly good then its entirely good thus would try to eliminate all evil. But evil still exists. Mackie concludes that at least one of the statements must be false. Mackie

In addition, theist could respond to the problem of evil and the atheist argument by pointing out what they think of premises (1) which atheist use in their argument. They could point out that one has the sensible grounds for trusting in the presence of the theistic God. Also not-3 consents premise (2) as true, and see that (not-1) monitors from (not-3) and (2). Then, concluded that one has sensible grounds for refusing (1). Therefore, having sensible grounds for declining (1), the theist can settle that the basic argument for atheism is

The deductive argument for evil is more philosophical and packs a bigger punch, while the evidential argument is much more convincing, but less powerful in the sense of philosophy. The deductive argument holds four propositions, the first is that god is all knowing, the second is that god is all powerful, the third is that god is all good, and finally the fourth is that evil exists in this world. If God is all of those things, then why does he allow pain and suffering to occur. This is where the evidential argument comes into play. The evidential argument holds that first, the kind of evil that exists in the world is unexpected if God exists, and secondly if the kind of evil that exists is not surprising if God does not exist. Therefore the

Although it could be argued that an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity could exist along with evil. It is in fact not reasonable to believe so. I will prove that it is unreasonable to believe a god with these attributes like this can exist accompanying evil. In order to give a valid argument ill look at each component, omniscience, omnipotence and Omni benevolence and break those down leading to the conclusion that a being such as this cannot coexist with evil. I will look at the arguments given for why god wouldn’t exist as well as some of the points that may be used by others to combat them. To make

These forms of counter arguments to the deductive explanation of evil’s non-compatibility with God can be refuted. The following are defenses for the deductive argument that support the primary understanding of God’s Omni benevolence as mandating the elimination of all existing evil. Firstly, Omni benevolence is a description of God’s absolutely good nature and entails that God desires everything that is good. This desire to bring about good things also means a desire to prevent evil things from happening. Hence God’s good nature doesn’t need to necessarily lead to no omission of good actions, but it does lead to the necessary idea that God

The more we learn, the more choices we realize that we have and we can choose any of these different choices thus giving us free will. The free will defense states that free will is the cause of evil. By giving man free will they aren’t restricted and therefore evil is inevitable in the world. For god to give man free will but prevent evil would be a contradiction within itself as free will is the freedom of choice but preventing evil would be taking away a choice. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good therefore free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil). Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God. This gives sufficient evidence to prove that god can be omni-benevolent as free will is an inherently good trait, however this does only explain moral evil and leaves natural evils unexplained. If god continuously rescued people from natural evils, then humanity would rely on him instead of themselves in case of emergency therefore becoming a very dependent species and losing free will. Furthermore, one can question how good free will

In this paper I will discuss the logical problem of evil and how it seems to reject the existence of God as an omni-3 being. I will first layout the logical problem of evil, and then I will explain why it succeeds in disproving the existence of God. I do this through pointing out the contradictions between the definition of God as an omni-3 being and the problem of redeemed and unredeemed evil. As well as by proving that admittance of evil in any way when in reference to the choices of God invalidates the omni-3 definition of God. I will address claims from those who believe in God about justification of evil as well as the concept and depth of human understanding.

Mackie in his article “Evil and Omnipotence” as follows: “In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false.” However, the contradiction isn’t clearly apparent from the above statements; we need to elaborate on them and add premises to show the contradiction. To begin with, we can say that a good entity will try to eliminate evil as much as it can. Also, there are no limits to what an omnipotent entity can do. So an entity that is both omnipotent and good would be able to eliminate all evil and is willing to eliminate all evil. Finally, the last premise is that evil exists in this world. So from the existence of evil we can conclude that either God can’t eradicate evil, God isn’t willing to eradicate evil, or both. This poses a great challenge to the theistic world view since it requires the theist to drop one of the above premises to make them consistent. Since no one can deny the existence of evil then the theist should give up one of God’s “omni” attributes or even give up on God himself since many people find that an imperfect God is unworthy of

Russell takes the ironic argument that a pure good force has infinite power however still creates something that is evil. He therefore challenges the question whether or not God exists. Leibniz would say otherwise as his response will show that the existence of evil is not a sufficient justification for the non-existence of God and that God can co-exist with evil. In this paper, I’m defending Leibniz’s view because God permitted evil in order for the greater good and God created a world in which good and evil exists through free will.