Site Loader

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: Shakazahn Sagore
Country: Cambodia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 10 June 2016
Pages: 314
PDF File Size: 7.85 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.92 Mb
ISBN: 440-1-80359-325-8
Downloads: 50674
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozshushicage

In other words, it appears that W 3 isn’t impossible after all. The Problem of Evil: This objection leads us to draw a distinction between the following two kinds of evil and suffering: Of course, it’s highly improbable, given what we know about human nature. I just felt veil letting it happen.

Could say God has 1 and 2 and chooses never to use 2. The Argument from Evil in Philosophy of Religion. That means that a set of statements is logically consistent if and only if that set does not include a direct contradiction and a direct contradiction cannot be deduced from that set.

ex-apologist: Notes on Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence”

These inabilities follow not from God’s omnipotence alone but from omnipotnece omnipotence in combination with his omniscience, moral perfection and the other divine perfections God possesses. She claims that a world full of evil and suffering is “conducive to bringing about both the initial human [receipt of God’s gift of salvation] and also the subsequent process of sanctification” Stumpp.


MSR2 seems to be asking us to believe things that only a certain kind of theist would believe.

Mass murderers and serial killers typically have reasons for why they commit horrible crimes, but they do not have good reasons. An earthquake kills hundreds in Peru.

In fact, it appears that even the most hardened atheist must admit that MSR1 and MSR2 are possible reasons God might have for allowing moral and natural evil. The sin of Adam and Eve was a moral evil.

Omnipotencce Problem of Evil The existence of omnippotence and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. But everything could be red and nothing non-red. So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with respect to the morally bad option.

It seems, then, that the Free Will Defense might be adapted to rebut the logical problem of natural evil after all. According to orthodox theism, all of the following statements and many more like them are true.

Logical Problem of Evil

Plantinga can’t put all the blame for pain and suffering on human beings. However, I’m not quite so confident that they’ve been defeated. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God] They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory.

Consider the following descriptions of various worlds. The responses of both Hick and Stump are intended to cover not only the logical problem of evil but also any other formulation of theas well. However, Mackie is reluctant to attribute much significance to Plantinga’s accomplishment.


Any two or three of them nad be true at the same time; but there is no way that all of them could be true. Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. Not just any old reason can justify God’s allowing all of the evil and suffering we see.

They may all be false or some may be true and others false.

Problems with the Free Will Defense A. From 9 through 11 we can infer: The Problem of Natural Evil I: Even if every quality must have a real opposite, this provides no solution to problem of evil, unless one is willing to say, there is just enough evil to serve as a counterpart to good. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: It does not require the joint of a consistent set of statements to be plausible.

If W 3 is possible, then the complaint lodged by Flew and Mackie above that God could and therefore should have created a world full of creatures who always did what is right is not answered. Jones’ infant daughter against polio, you would no longer view Mrs.