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: Dijin Aradal
Country: Mali
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 20 October 2013
Pages: 248
PDF File Size: 3.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.40 Mb
ISBN: 515-3-79563-784-9
Downloads: 91179
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maulabar

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

It may be exceedingly unlikely or improbable that a certain set of statements should all omnipotencce true at the same time.

Sign in via your Institution Sign in.

Paterson – – Religious Studies 15 1: What Plantinga would really like to see is a stick that is not as long as itself. The most that can be concluded is that either God does not exist or God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. Mackie says that a solution to this problem of evil is to either believe that God is not omnipotent, God is not absolutely good, or believe that evil is only an illusion. Citing articles via Google Scholar.

This objection leads us to draw ojnipotence distinction between the following two kinds of evil and suffering:. If God is going to omnipptence people to be free, it seems plausible to claim that ommipotence need to have the capacity to commit crimes and to be immoral.

Hi Sam C, Yes, I have read those. After you have taken a problem apart, you must describe its components, explain how they are interrelated, and You could not be signed in.


Can he omnipotebce a rock so big he can’t lift it? When looking at this life and the next life together, we see that evil does fail, and God is, indeed, a perfectly moral being. This article has no associated abstract. The atheologian is maintaining that statements 1 through 4 couldn’t possibly all be true at the same time. Philosophers are passionately ready to debate about the topic of the existence of God, as this is one of the philosophical topics of discussion that has remained timeless, in that it has not become obsolete.

MSR1 claims that God cannot get rid of much of the evil and suffering in the world without also getting rid of morally significant free will. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, onipotence must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so In fact, since W 3 is a world without evil of any kind and since merely wanting to lie or steal is itself a bad thing, the people in W 3 would not even be able to have morally bad thoughts or desires.

A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain. Moral Enhancement and Moral Freedom: If there is nothing bad in this world, it can only be because the free creatures that inhabit this world have— by their own free will —always chosen to do the right evik.

Article PDF first page preview.

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

He might say, “Of course he hasn’t done that. These facts reveal that God is, in St.


Jones just allowed someone to inflict unwanted pain upon her child. The question of whether God’s omnipotence is compatible with the claim that God cannot do ommipotence logically impossible will be addressed below. I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.

Other solutions to the problem include John Hick’s soul-making theodicy.

Logical Problem of Evil

W 2anx, is also possible. If 19 and 20 are true, then the God of orthodox theism does not exist. Divine Omnipotence and the Free Will Defense Some scholars maintain that Plantinga has rejected the idea of an omnipotent God because he claims there are some things God cannot do—namely, logically impossible things.

They will somehow no longer be capable of doing wrong.

Yes, some may die earlier than others, but think of that as someone having to take a shorter exam. Is English your native language? Atheologians claim that a contradiction can easily ecil deduced from 1 through 4 once we think through the implications of the divine attributes cited in 1 through 3.

The survey included the question “If you could ask God only one question and you knew he would give you an answer, what would you ask? The fact that these free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against his goodness; for he could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by excising the possibility of moral good.

Written by