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. (12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, .. such as Anthony Flew and J. L. Mackie have argued that an omnipotent God. IV.—EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE. By J. L. MACKIE. THE traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers.
|Published (Last):||8 November 2004|
|PDF File Size:||20.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Email alerts New issue alert. He reasons as follows. Sign In Forgot password? Something is dreadfully wrong with our world. Problem of evil evill them in a much worse position. People have free will in this world and there is evil and suffering. Originally, Plantinga claimed that W 3 is not a logically possible world because the description of that world is logically inconsistent.
Sign in to use this feature. It seems that, although Plantinga’s Free Will Defense ebil be able to explain why God allows moral evil to occur, it cannot explain why he allows natural evil.
People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so. They charge that a good God would and should eliminate all evil and suffering. Article PDF first page preview. Statements 6 through 8 jointly imply that if the perfect God of theism really existed, there would not be ad evil or suffering.
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. Related articles in Google Nad. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful.
J. L. Mackie, Evil and omnipotence – PhilPapers
Omnipotence, Evil and Supermen. A higher moral duty—namely, the duty of protecting the long-term health of her child—trumps the lesser duty expressed by If God is going to causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong in W 3there is no way that he could allow them to be free in a morally significant sense.
They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory. The implausibility of MSR2 is taken by some to be a serious defect.
Evil and the Many Universes Response. Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other.
In response to this charge, Plantinga maintains that there are some worlds God cannot create. Might one argue that 2 nd order goods far outweigh 2 nd order evils in importance and so this is still the best of all possible worlds?
Logical Problem of Evil
Is W 3 possible? And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering.
I didn’t have the FWD in mind, actually. You do not currently have access to this article. If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue…. However, I’m not quite so confident that they’ve been defeated. A good thing always eliminates or opposes evil as much as it can.
However, since MSR2 deals with the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil which claims that it is logically impossible for God and natural evil to co-existit only needs to sketch a possible way for God and natural evil to co-exist. This orthodox view of heaven poses the following significant challenges to Plantinga’s view: 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.
Jones’ infant daughter against polio, you would no longer view Mrs. 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.
As it stands, however, some important challenges to the Free Will Defense remain unanswered.
That situation doesn’t need to be actual or even realistic. If you took away our free will, we would no longer be the kinds of creatures we are. If God is going to allow people to be free, it seems plausible to claim that they need to have the capacity to commit crimes and to be oomnipotence.
Other Responses to the Logical Problem of Evil Plantinga’s Free Will Defense has been the most famous theistic response to the logical problem of evil because he did more to clarify the issues surrounding the logical problem than anyone else.
On Being a Christiantrans. Since rvil did not do so, God did something blameworthy by not preventing or eliminating evil and suffering if indeed God exists at all.
Ninian Smart – – Philosophy 36 Divine Omnipotence in Philosophy mzckie Religion. According to this proposal, God is not ignoring your suffering when he doesn’t act to prevent it because—as an all-knowing God—he knows about all of your suffering. Do people really need to die from heart disease and flash floods in order for us to have morally significant free will?
He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil. Many theists answer “Yes. Recall that the logical problem of evil can be summarized as the following claim: They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.
The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: Although Plantinga claimed that his Free Will Defense offered merely possible and not necessarily evol reasons God might have for allowing evil and suffering, it may be difficult for other theists to embrace his defense if it runs contrary to what theism says is actually the case in heaven.