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: Fenribar Mahn
Country: Italy
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 3 May 2015
Pages: 166
PDF File Size: 15.45 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.73 Mb
ISBN: 255-5-46023-140-9
Downloads: 17786
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faedal

A Philosophical Perspectiveby Richard Gaskin. Is W 3 possible? The same holds true for the struggles on Earth, as its aim is omnipogence becoming a better person and getting eternal happiness.

In particular, he cannot do the logically impossible.

If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there evjl be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. Have you read Plantinga? It was, after all, Mackie himself who characterized the problem of evil as one of logical inconsistency: Can he make contradictory statements true?

And for that they must be free. 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: But if it is possible for God to possess morally significant freedom and znd him to be unable to do wrong, then W 3 once again appears to be possible after all.

Logical Problem of Evil

In other words, whether there is immorality in either one of these worlds depends upon the persons living in these worlds—not upon God. The responses of both Hick and Stump are intended to cover not only the logical problem of evil but also any other formulation of the problem as well.


Recall that the logical problem of evil can be summarized as the following claim: She writes, Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes away a person’s satisfaction with himself.

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. Imagine a possible world where God creates znd with a very limited kind of freedom. 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.

J. L. Mackie, Evil and omnipotence – PhilPapers

In a sense, Mackie is saying that religion is irrational. According to classical theism, believers in heaven will somehow be changed so that they will no longer commit any sins. But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state. In the second half of the twentieth century, atheologians that is, persons who try to prove the non-existence of God commonly claimed that the problem of evil was a omniotence of logical inconsistency.

He expresses doubt about mackiw Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil. Introducing the Problem Journalist and best-selling author Lee Strobel commissioned George Barna, the public-opinion pollster, to conduct a nationwide survey.

The belief is that each and every one is given a unique test and that each person must go through it so they may learn nad.

To make the conflict more clear, we can combine 12 and 3 into the following single statement. The only difference is that, in W 1the free creatures choose to do wrong at least some of the time, and in W 4the free creatures always make morally good decisions.

We are creatures with morally significant free will. He might say, “Of course he hasn’t done that. Although sketching out mere possibilities without giving them any evidential support is typically an unsatisfactory thing to do in philosophy, it is not clear that Mackie’s unhappiness with Plantinga is completely warranted.


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

Plantinga can’t put all the blame for pain and suffering on human beings. If logic were created by God e. They will also be able to guess why a different reason was chosen in this article. It has no choice about the matter.

An implicit assumption behind this part of the debate over the logical problem of evil is the following:.

Evil and Omnipotence

Sign in Create an account. He writes, A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free and freely perform more good than evil actions is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.

If God was free to create any world he wanted, then he could have choosen that one he has free will, no? I didn’t have the FWD in mind, actually.

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 omniootence chosen to do the right thing. Moore, edited by David G. The solutions that Mackie attacked only focused on one side of the equation, namely, these solutions tried to explain the problem of evil by looking at worldly life rather than also considering the afterlife.