EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE MACKIE PDF

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: Yogal Telar
Country: Guyana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 28 September 2004
Pages: 46
PDF File Size: 14.38 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.30 Mb
ISBN: 774-6-24862-400-1
Downloads: 19639
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zulull

Thomas Aquinas and Process Thought. But if it is possible for God to possess morally significant freedom and for him to be unable to do wrong, then W 3 once again appears to be possible after all. You do not currently have access to this article. So, asking why we are on Earth is as pointless.

That doesn’t necessarily close the argument as a whole, illustrated by the new ‘evidential’ arguments from evil. You could not be signed in. Here is a possible reason God might have for allowing natural evil: When looking at this life and the next life together, we see that evil does fail, and Aand is, veil, a perfectly moral being. Moral Enhancement and Moral Freedom: To begin with, MSR1 presupposes the view of free will known as “libertarianism”: Suppose that the persons in this world can only choose good options and are incapable of choosing bad options.

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

Munz and Bernhard Ritter. They reason as follows: This article addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions–that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. Even Mackie admits that Plantinga solved the ad of evil, if that problem is understood as one of inconsistency.

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. Writing Guides for Students Writing a Memoir 2. It’s only when people have morally good reasons that we excuse or condone their behavior.

  LINKSYS WRT610N USER GUIDE PDF

They note omnilotence philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory. Death, disease, pain and even the tiresome labor involved in gleaning food from the soil came into the world as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin.

The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other New Essays in Philosophical Theology.

Most people are tempted to answer “No” when first exposed to this description, but think carefully about it. We might wonder why God would choose to risk populating his new creation with free creatures if he knew there was a chance that human immorality could foul the whole thing up.

In response to each of these questions, Plantinga’s answer is “No. He also maintains that part of what makes us the creatures omnipotejce are is that we possess morally significant freedom.

Logical Problem of Evil

It would be one thing if the only people who suffered debilitating diseases or tragic losses were the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Osama Bin Laden. Ah, I see what you’re getting at: Of course, it’s highly improbable, given what we know about human evol.

A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating.

The atheologian is maintaining that statements 1 through 4 couldn’t possibly all be true at the same time. Responding to this formulation of the problem requires much more than simply describing a logically possible scenario in which God and evil co-exist. What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent? So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with ad to the morally bad option.

Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. One might ask mcakie God has put us on Earth in the first place.

The question of whether God’s omnipotence is compatible with the claim that God cannot do the logically impossible will be addressed below.

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

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 do the same for the existence of a supreme being. It is difficult to see that they do. 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:.

  M SCOTT PECK DRUMUL CATRE TINE INSUTI PDF

It tends to humble him, show him his frailty, make him reflect on the transience of temporal goods, and turn his affections towards other-worldly things, away from the things of this world. 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.

The Case for Faith: Find it on Scholar. It leaves several of the most important questions about God and evil unanswered. The Problem of Evil: He will be able to have a foundation for his or her life and happiness will likely come. MSR1 claims that God allows some evils to occur that are smaller in value than a greater good to which they are intimately connected. A pancreatic cancer patient suffers prolonged, excruciating pain and dies.

J. L. Mackie, Evil and omnipotence – PhilPapers

But for my part, that sort of solution is relatively uninteresting, as logical possibility is an unreliable guide to what Plantinga calls “broad logical possibility”, i. 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: According to classical theism, the fact that God cannot do any of these things is not a sign of weakness.

Denying the truth of either 123 or 4 is certainly one way omipotence the theist to escape from the logical problem of evil, but it would not be a very palatable option to many theists. We are creatures with morally significant free will. But not clear we can make sense of God acting if he is outside time. This assumes that logic is independent of God.