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. Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all . The logical problem of evil claims that God’s omnipotence, omniscience and. IV.—EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE. By J. L. MACKIE. THE traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers.

Author: Basar Shakak
Country: Chad
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 12 July 2014
Pages: 403
PDF File Size: 12.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.71 Mb
ISBN: 938-3-21659-355-5
Downloads: 84922
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kijas

In other words, 16 It is not possible for God and evil to co-exist.

Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

One who lives a longer life has a bigger test to take and has more expectations from God. No keywords specified fix it.

So, asking why we are on Earth is as pointless. In response to this charge, Plantinga maintains that there are some worlds God cannot create.

Critiques on J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence”

Register Lost your password? He would urge those uncomfortable with the idea of limitations on God’s power to think carefully about the absurd implications of a God who can do the logically impossible. The Nature of Necessary. So the universe is better in virtue of having 1 st order evils. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine 12 and 3 into the following single statement.

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

Plantinga claims that when we think through what robust free will really amounts to, we can see that atheologians are unbeknownst to themselves asking God to do the logically impossible. Like in aestheticscontrast heightens beauty e. But once you find out that the pain was caused by a shot that immunized Mrs. He considers some common arguments for an all good god and tears them down to pieces, showing that logically, such a god cannot exist.


According to Plantinga, people in the actual world are free in the most robust sense of that term. We are creatures with morally significant free will. You could not be signed in. A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free and freely perform more good than evil actions is more valuable, ombipotence else omnipootence equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Mac,ie course, it’s highly improbable, given what we know about human nature. The Miracle of Theism.

It does not require the joint of a consistent set of statements to be plausible. He reasons as follows. Causal forces beyond your control would make you tell the truth on every occasion. Omnipohence he make a rock so big he can’t lift it?

It would be ridiculous to give moral praise to a robot for putting your soda can in the recycle bin rather than the trash can, if that is what it was programmed to do.

Can God create a round square? Is W 3 possible? There is nothing contradictory about supposing that there is a possible world where free creatures always make the right choices and never go wrong. Both worlds are populated by creatures with free will and in neither world does God causally determine people to always choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. More likely, the latter person will lead a less happy and enjoyable life than the former in the long run.

Logical Problem of Evil

What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent? Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests that—in light of the evil and suffering we find in our world—if God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked.

Because of this, when they do what is right, they can properly be praised. God, it seems, is incapable of doing anything wrong. If God is going to allow people to be free, it seems plausible to claim that they need to have the capacity to commit crimes and to be immoral.


Although Plantinga claimed that his Free Will Defense offered merely possible and not necessarily actual reasons God might have for allowing evil and suffering, it may be difficult for other theists to embrace his defense if it runs contrary to what theism says is actually the case in heaven.

Mackie, then, explores some common theist responses to these questions and attempts to prove them illogical. Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. There is a morally justifying reason for God to permit evil He could prevent, a reason we could not know of or, do not ad ofand He permits evil for that reason, and evil omnipotenxe Seems to resolve the apparent conflict.

How would my free will be compromised if tomorrow God completely eliminated cancer from the face of the Earth? MSR1 God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of evik are logically inconsistent with one another.

The Evidential Argument from Evil.

W 2then, is also possible. Heroism in face of danger. God has obviously not causally determined people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong because there would be no evil or suffering if he had.

Was Plantinga’s Victory Too Easy?

As Flewp. Consider the following descriptions of various worlds.