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: Kigakus Gubei
Country: Portugal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 19 April 2011
Pages: 354
PDF File Size: 11.49 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.94 Mb
ISBN: 832-4-14001-496-6
Downloads: 59284
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zushura

To make the conflict more clear, we can combine 12 and 3 into the following single statement. Think about what it would be like to live in W 3. Because a contradiction can be deduced from statements 1 through 4 and because all theists believe 1 through 4atheologians claim that theists have logically inconsistent beliefs. We would not be human in that world.

In other words, whether there is immorality in either one of these worlds depends upon the persons living in these worlds—not upon God. Lectures, Cambridge —, From the Notes of G.

Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If God had no morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then if we made it to the pearly gates some day and asked God why he allowed so many bad things to happen, he would simply have to shrug his shoulders and say “There was no reason or point to all of that suffering you endured. For example, he can perform miracles turn water into wine, or walk on water. In fact, according to the first chapter of Genesis, animals in the Garden of Eden didn’t even kill each other for food before the Fall.

Rejecting a or b.

Although sketching out mere possibilities without giving them any evidential support is typically an omjipotence thing to do in philosophy, it is not clear that Mackie’s unhappiness with Plantinga is completely warranted.


And the same if for good to exist some evil must also exist. Here is a possible reason God might have for allowing natural evil:. Where is the evil in that?

Logical Problem of Evil

Does Plantinga’s Free Will Defense succeed in describing a possible state of affairs in which God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? 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: MSR2 seems to be asking us to believe things that only a certain kind of theist would believe.

Someone who ignores his or her studies and has too much outside fun during college makcie, his or her end result will be much different. However, it is not clear that human freedom requires the existence of natural evils like deadly viruses and natural disasters. W 2then, is also possible. It seems that, although Plantinga’s Free Will Defense may be able to explain why God allows moral evil to occur, it cannot explain why anr allows natural evil.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

In response to the ‘logical’ argument from evil, the proposition summarised by Howard-Snyder I don’t actually know who first formulated it: If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. In fact, since W 3 is a world without evil of any kind and since merely oomnipotence 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.


IV.—EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE | Mind | Oxford Academic

Many theists 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: Why, then, did God give them free will? Register Username Email Is English your native language? Other Responses to the Logical Problem of Evil Plantinga’s Free Will Defense has been the most famous theistic response to the logical problem omnipktence evil because he did more to clarify the issues surrounding the logical problem than anyone else.


From the Omnipotennce via CrossRef no proxy mind. According to Plantinga, Mackie is correct in thinking that there is nothing impossible about a snd in which people always freely choose to do right. When someone claims 40 Situation x is impossible, what is the least that you would have to prove in order to show that 40 is false?

Theists who onipotence to rebut the logical problem of evil need to find a way to show that 1 through 4 —perhaps despite initial appearances—are consistent after all.

On the contrary, theists claim, it is an indication of his supremacy and uniqueness. Plantinga would deny that any such person has morally significant free will.

In particular, omnipotencf cannot do the logically impossible. He explores other defenses by the believers and criticizes them, including the defense that says that evil is a mechanism to enrich a higher level of good.

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

Divine Omnipotence in Philosophy of Religion. Can he make rules which then bind himself e. Much Evil is not due to God, but to human free will. It was, after all, Mackie himself who characterized the problem of evil as one of logical inconsistency: But this is peculiar; not what we mean when we say God is good better or that murder is evil worse Since MSR1 and MSR2 together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and moral and natural evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil.