...Counter-Argument Towards J. L. Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence In “Evil and Omnipotence” J. L. Mackie argues that God does not exist because of his idea of the 3-0-God which states that God has to be omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent to fulfill the properties of a true God. Perhaps the strongest argument that Mackie gives is that God can only be two out of the three properties in order for evil to exist thus stating that god cannot exist because he does not fulfill all three properties. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because Mackie is basing his points on his own thoughts about God. Mackie starts out his argument by stating that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists or at least the god of Christianity, Judaism and Islamic does not exist since the problem of evil provokes the three properties of God. Mackie supports this claim by saying, “These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do.” (Abel p.91) and concludes this claim with, “…propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible.” (Abel p.91) Adequate solutions are also what backs up his major point about the problem of evil and states that God cannot be all knowing while being all-powerful and all-good because evil exists and would mean that God is unaware of evil in the world. God can be...
Words: 1136 - Pages: 5
...The definition of “God” is the supernatural that is conceived as the perfect, omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. God is the object of worship in monotheistic religions. After having studied this subject frequently back in the past and this chapter, there are many arguments for the existence of God such as the cosmological, the teleological, the ontological, and the moral arguments, etc. Although they are very powerful arguments, each one of them also has their own weakness. There are not only arguments towards the existence of God; however, there are also arguments against God as well. These are called the Empirical, Deductive, Inductive, and Subjective arguments. But, again, these arguments each also have their own strengths and weaknesses just like the arguments for the existence of God. One popular form of the Cosmological argument states that things exist and it is possible for those things to not exist; there is an uncaused caused for everything that has been brought into existence. So, according to this argument, the cause and what created the universe must have been God’s doing. However, this argument is thought by some to be completely illogical, as God would have to be caused as well. So, if God had a cause, what created God? Then there must be a higher power even above God. But yet, God is supposed to be all-powerful. Maybe it created itself? How is that possible? Perhaps the universe was always there, perhaps God was always there. I am...
Words: 1257 - Pages: 6
...The Problem of Evil McCayley Hendricks MWF-2pm #3564 November 17, 2014 One of the most prominent arguments against the existence of God today would be the problem of evil. Not only is it a problem for Christians, who want to provide a defense for their faith, but it is also a problem for Christians, who being faced with suffering and pain on account of evil, and without knowing the thoughts or intentions of God, wish to reconcile the two ideas together. In spite of Mackie’s Logical Argument of Evil proving, some would say, that it is not possible for both God and evil to exist, I believe that it is in fact possible that they exist simultaneously. My reason for believing so stems from the Free-Will Defense, coupled with a deeper understanding and more clearly defined description of the attributes of God and how they work together. I will also highlight scripture that incorporates both the existence of evil as well as the existence of God, who remedies the evil into a greater good, reiterating a point made in premise 4 of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. In order to walk you through my thought process, I will start with a basic outline of Mackie’s Logical Argument, as well as include why this is a problem for theists. I will then define some ambiguous terms in his argument, and shed some light on the culture-saturated definitions of Christian lingo used in the argument. And finally, I will present the Free-Will Defense and show how this paired with the previous information...
Words: 2028 - Pages: 9
...the depiction of god in the Quran as well as in the Bible, Torah and many more. God can be simply described, as St Anslem said "nothing greater can be conceived". In essence it is the utmost supreme being and to be classified as a supreme being you must be the absolute of everything possible; such as love, knowledge, and existence. By definition a being must be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent to be viewed as god, however if one or all of these attributes are proven impossible to achieve that must mean God does not exist if potrayed in Christian or Muslim perspective. Based on the theistic perception of God, this being cannot exist due to the countless issues that arises such as the paradox of hell, the problem of evil, the omnipotence paradox, the argument of freewill and lastly the dysteleological argument. Before claiming God in nonexistant, we must first understand what it means to exist. To claim something exist is quite hard to prove given that there are many factors that can disapprove it such as senses. A materialistic philosopher would claim that by seeing colour shapes or feeling texture proves its existence however they are mere interpretations of our brain to create a sense and would colour exist if they were no light. These simple factors that we tend to take advantage of seem complex when scrutinized, furthermore how can weight exist if there is no gravity. Additionally sound is a mere interaction of ripples of subatomic molecules that are interpreted...
Words: 1530 - Pages: 7
...statements do not contradict or are inconsistent of one another. This defense does not underline the power, mercy, and goodness of God. Davis makes a compelling argument when he says, “Nor am I attracted to any ‘solution’ that denies God’s omnipotence-e.g., that says that God is not powerful enough to prevent evil” (Davis 74). Free will is great because it helps people to realize there is something bigger about God that we don’t understand, but it fights to understand evil without degrading God and his wondrous characteristics. The evil seems unbearable, but it is just a piece of a larger picture. Eternity and the end outcome will make up for it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say life will be a bed of roses. John 16:33, “In the world you will...
Words: 325 - Pages: 2
... 2 II. Categories of Attributes 2 III. Incommunicable Attributes of God 5 A. Sovereignty 5 B. Aseity 7 C. Immutability 7 D. E. Eternity (Eternality) 9 F. Omnipotence 10 G. Omnipresence 11 H. Infinity 11 I. J. IV. Communicable Attributes of God 12 A. Holiness 13 B. Righteousness 14 C. Love ...
Words: 4768 - Pages: 20
...against the existence of God. First assume God exists. Along with his other powers, and most importantly for our species, God is supposed to possess omnibenevolence. Imagine a world created by an omnibenevolent god. What would this world look like? Most simply stated it would probably be a world like our own but with the absence of malevolence and suffering. This is a problem however, because by definition it does not match the world in which we exist. By imagining a universe without evil surely an omnipotent being could create such a thing if he so chose. God does not seem to have created such a universe, therefore he cannot be said to possess omnibenevolence. Or perhaps God wished to create such a universe but was incapable, refuting his omnipotence. Some atheists have used this line of thought to argue against any notion of a benevolent, all powerful God. At face value some might find this completely plausible but it is not as firm an argument as an atheist would hope. The modern atheist example of the logical problem with evil follows along these lines: God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...Assumptions April Davis CCU Worldviews Block 1 Randall Niles June 01, 2013 Assumptions So many questions, where was God? What is true evil? How could God let something of this nature happen to hundreds of innocent people? This tragedy on September 11, 2001 shook this country’s faith in God. The faith that we thought we had was shaken, why were so many innocent people killed and so many spared? It brings about the question of good and evil, if there is a God and he is good why does He bring such suffering to people. If we pray, go to church and do all the “right” things why? In the book Making Sense of Your World (Phillips, 2008) it states Believers should expect suffering if they follow Christ (Mark 8:34; John 15:20) and thus can in a sense rejoice in those sufferings, which are for Christs sake. God allowed sin to occur and He was the ultimate victim. Evil is a force as one put it in the video, it invites you to join it. This generation has lost touch with the manifestions of evil, TV shows, movies even violence in their own home. So evil is a part of everyday life for some. It is normal in a sense. Everyone’s view of evil may be a little different to each, something I think is evil may be normal to someone else. Some things that we call evil are simply things that may displease us because they hinder the fullfillment of our inflated desires (Phillips, 2008) Stehpen Davis concurs: “The problem of evil, in my opinion and in the opinion of others is the most...
Words: 640 - Pages: 3
...I believe that the concept of God is illogical. As God is the Supreme Being, he has a quantity of divine attributes such as: omniscience, omnipotence, Omni-benevolence, supreme goodness, eternal, self-sufficient, perfect, and everlasting, transcendence and immanence. In this essay, I will be looking at God's omnipotence, through the Stone Paradox, his omniscience, through the Free Will Paradox and Gods 'omniscience and immutability' and showing how they are not comprehensible. Firstly, The Paradox of the Stone tests God's omnipotence. The dilemma is that either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (as He cannot lift the Stone). If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone). Consequently, either way God is not omnipotent as there is something He cannot do. The first objection to the Stone Paradox is from George Mavrodes. He argues that the paradox is logically impossible. The claim that someone, x, can make something too heavy for x to lift is not generally self-contradictory. However, it becomes self-contradictory when x is omnipotent. An omnipotent being that cannot lift a stone is logically impossible because it is self-contradictory and describes nothing. Hence, there is no possible power for an omnipotent being to create a stone they cannot lift. So if God is omnipotent, and...
Words: 1284 - Pages: 6
...Does God Exist? Descartes’ Arguments and Proofs Rene Descartes considers what he can be sure to be true in his Meditations on First Philosophy. His meditations cover a vast variety of areas: the nature of the mind and body, the senses, the essence and existence of material things; but of all of these topics, one of his most thought-provoking and fascinating meditations is that on the existence of God. His argument is fairly well stated, but it is not flawless in its reasoning and logic. Through explanation and analysis of his position, this paper will set out his belief on the existence of God, the importance of this argument to his overall position, and to discuss several of the problems in his reasoning. The first proof at which Descartes considers God is the in the third meditation. By this point, Descartes has already concluded that the only thing thus far that he can be sure of is that he exists as some sort of thinking thing. He has considered the existence of a malevolent spirit that has set out specifically to deceive him at every turn, which has the effect of rendering any other belief spurious at best. In the face of the possibility that something is deliberately setting out to deceive him, he is left only with the knowledge that he is a thinking thing. From there, we get into the third meditation, wherein Descartes considers the possibility of the existence of God, and what precisely that would entail. (Beyssade) Descartes starts by pointing out that in order...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...Revision - Philosopher’s and their views A.J Ayer weak verification, “mountains on the other side of the moon” Hick -eschatological verification “we’ll know at the end” -epistemic distance between us and God -Universal salvation -Replica theory -traducianism (soul inherited from parents) -Price’s mental world= consistent Price -“mental world” in which we live Karl Popper -falsification principle, true until proven otherwise Antony Flew -parable of the two gardeners, death of a thousand qualifications - historical evidence, tested experience -God could have made us free, but do the right thing R.M Hare -bliks, lunatics Basil Mitchell -resistance leader, rel people may accept points, but view won’t change Maimonedes -via negative avoids anthropomorphism of God! Scotus -analogy as a means of describing God= vague Aquinas -Analogy of attribution(good bread=good baker)/ analogy of proportion (it’s all relative) -God cant do “non actions” like 2+2=5 - God is timeless, REASON, we get his nature via revelation Tillich - symbols unlock things from God Bultmann -demythologising stories Wittgenstein -picture theory of language, language games James -physcology, empiricism,pluralism, pragmatism -passive, ineffable, noetic, transient -Philosopher/ Phychologist -rel exp has mental dimension, not just this -truth is in the results! Otto -Wholly Other Schliemacher -emotional experiences Buber -I thou relationship Feuerbach - God is man...
Words: 588 - Pages: 3
...Platinga's free will defense. According to him, God chose to create a world filled with significantly free creatures because He found such world to be better and more valuable than the ones without (after all, the acts of real love needs a certain degree of freedom to make them true). From this premise, he then adds that while God can create free creatures, he cannot make them to only do what is right (for if He does so, then they are not free in the end). In another words, to create a creature who is capable of doing moral good freely, God must also create a creature who is also capable of doing moral evil. If the free creatures then go wrong in exercising their freedom (as what happens in today's reality), it is by no means imply that God's omnipotence is faulty. Platinga also adds that while the free creature's mistakes are the sources of moral evil, natural evil (such as earthquakes) are caused by mighty non-human spirits (such as Satan). It is also impossible for significantly free creatures to always do what is good because of what Platinga has called as the Transworld Depravity (if the idea of a possible world where humans always do good is brought to the actual world, humans will instead do the opposite and choose the wrong/evil option). Other than Platinga's defenses, there are also a variety of theodicies that have been offered by scholars, philosophers, and Christians alike to respond against the problem of evil. Some theodicies insist that evil stems from human misconducts...
Words: 1060 - Pages: 5
...I will argue that "Good cannot exist without evil" and "Evil is due to human free will" are in fact adequate solutions to the problem of evil. Mackie (1955), defines God as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, meaning God is all-knowing and all-good, and should be able to eliminate all evil from the world, and yet evil exists all around us. Mackie (1955), defines evil as needless suffering. There is human evil, something done by people, to people and natural evil, like natural disasters. The first fallacious solution Mackie (1955), presents is "Good cannot exist without evil." 1. If God is omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to stop all evil. 2. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, or there are limits on God's omnipotence. The first premise states that if God were in fact omnipotent or all-powerful, then he should RESPONSE TO FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 2 be able to eliminate any evil in the world without any problem. The second premise simply states that evil exists, which we can clearly see in the world around us through people suffering due to natural and human-caused disasters. Mackie (1955), then presents the conclusion that because evil exists, God cannot be omnipotent or...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
...I will argue that "Good cannot exist without evil" and "Evil is due to human free will" are in fact adequate solutions to the problem of evil. Mackie (1955), defines God as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, meaning God is all-knowing and all-good, and should be able to eliminate all evil from the world, and yet evil exists all around us. Mackie (1955), defines evil as needless suffering. There is human evil, something done by people, to people and natural evil, like natural disasters. The first fallacious solution Mackie (1955), presents is "Good cannot exist without evil." 1. If God is omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to stop all evil. 2. Evil exists. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, or there are limits on God's omnipotence. The first premise states that if God were in fact omnipotent or all-powerful, then he should RESPONSE TO FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 2 be able to eliminate any evil in the world without any problem. The second premise simply states that evil exists, which we can clearly see in the world around us through people suffering due to natural and human-caused disasters. Mackie (1955), then presents the conclusion that because evil exists, God cannot be omnipotent or...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
...My essay will summarize the problem of evil and analytically assess how it is that evil weakens the traditional characteristics of God. I will attempt to explain how the existence of evil challenges the traditional characteristics of God such as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence and Omni benevolence using Hume’s famous quote, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (Hume) The theological and metaphysical problem of evil was formulated in 1779 by David Hume in his work “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” where he asked the question, if God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent then why does evil exist (Sherry)? The problem of evil causes us to look at the traditional characteristics of God and to analytically assess our suppositions about evil itself. If our God is a good, all powerful and just God as many people believe, then why would such a God allow evil to exist? This problem also brings to light questions about what is considered to be evil, whether it is moral evil committed by man or natural evil such as earthquakes, hurricanes and famine (Sherry). There are several arguments that have developed in reaction to the problem of evil that was suggested by David Hume. One such argument which is known as the free will defense claims that evil is solely caused by human beings, who must have the opportunity...
Words: 2021 - Pages: 9
