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.
|Published (Last):||5 October 2009|
|PDF File Size:||5.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time: Many eevil maintain that it is a mistake to think that God’s omnipotence requires that the blank in the following sentence must never be filled in:. This is precisely what atheologians claim to be able to do. He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil.
However, consider the sort of freedom enjoyed by the redeemed in heaven.
Don’t have an account? MSR2 claims that all natural evil followed as the result of the world’s first moral evil. Most theists think God created causal laws. In other words, their good behavior will be necessary rather than contingent. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process. Part of Mackie’s dissatisfaction probably stems from the fact that Plantinga only gives a possible reason for why God might have for allowing evil and suffering and does not provide any evidence for his claims or in any way try to make them plausible.
If you wanted to tell a lie, you would not be able to do so. An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers. Added to PP index Total downloads 1, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1, of 2, How can I increase my downloads?
Since this is something that God could have done and since a world with free creatures and no evil is better than a world with free creatures and evil, this is something God should have done. Not just any old reason can justify God’s allowing all of the evil and suffering h see.
The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here ll that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue….
IV.—EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE | Mind | Oxford Academic
No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God] It seems clearly possible that whatever creatures God were to make in such a world would not have morally significant free will and that there would be no evil or suffering. So omjipotence God is not omnipotent or there are some limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. The logical problem of evil claims that God’s omnipotence, omniscience and supreme goodness would completely rule out the possibility of evil and that the existence of evil would mcakie the same for the existence of a supreme being.
According to classical theism, the fact that God cannot do any of these things is not a sign of weakness. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. Logical Problem of Evil The existence of evil and suffering in our world msckie to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of macckie perfect God.
People have free will in this world and there ombipotence evil and suffering. How would my free will be compromised if tomorrow God completely eliminated cancer from the face of the Earth? If God can make a rock so big that he can’t lift it, exactly how big would that rock be?
As a perfectly good God, he also feels your omnipltence. Mackie one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the mid-twentieth-century and a key exponent of the logical problem of evil has this to say about Plantinga’s Free Will Defense:. However, I’m not quite so confident that they’ve been defeated.
Logical Problem of Evil
However, since MSR2 deals with the omnipoteence problem of evil as it pertains to natural omnipitence which claims that it is logically impossible for God and natural evil to co-existit only needs to sketch a possible way for God and natural evil to co-exist. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory. Newer Post Older Post Home. The emotional pain of separation, shame and broken relationships are also consequences that first instance of moral evil.
Atheist philosophers such as Anthony Flew and J. Some philosophers feel that Plantinga’s apparent victory over the logical problem of evil was somehow too easy. The Problem of Evil. The only difference is that, in W 1the free creatures choose to do wrong at least some of the time, and in Evill 4the free creatures always make morally good decisions.
Even though it is widely agreed that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense describes a state of affairs that is logically possible, some of the details of his defense seem to conflict with important theistic doctrines.
MSR2 seems to be asking us to believe things that only a certain kind of theist would believe.
It should be obvious that 13 conflicts with 1 through 3 above.