For theologians, evil poses several problems, most notably when it comes to the existence of God. To most theologists, God has a set definition. The existence of suffering is not compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, omni benevolent superior being. An all-knowing being would be aware that suffering is and always will be in existence; an all-powerful being would be able to prevent suffering; and a perfectly good being would desire to end suffering. Why does evil exist?
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||12 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||16.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.26 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Mackie went about it all wrong. All you have to do is find a single evil act that can only be attributed to God supposing he exists. If God is all good, then he can do no evil. X is evil. If God exists, then God would have to have done X. Therefore, God does not exist. Is the theist prepared to argue God can act has acted against his nature? Because that what will be required.
In any case, finding such an Evil X does atheism no harm. Straight deduction from the total sum. Is there any logical contradiction between the fact that my memory and senses tell me that almost everybody has two legs and my belief that Homo sapiens is a unipedal species? Plantinga has unleashed the Doomsday weapon of Christian apologetics, taking all rational discourse with it. But the vast majority of the world are not Christian apologists who will point out that there is a logical possibility that people miscount their legs.
How does that work? How can this alleged god exist in all logically possible worlds, when Plantinga has to write entire books trying to find even one world in which this alleged god can exist? I would definitely be a customer. Is there any more material you have I might acquire? If an all-good God exists in all possible worlds, then there should be lots of possible worlds in which he does not have a morally justifying reason for permitting the evil that exists in some of those possible worlds.
Is this true? Parents and educators are not omniscient and omnipotent, and know that they cannot be there to help you later in life. Those limitations do not hold for a God. An omnipotent God would be able to inspire those other people without allowing a bad situation to develop. Otherwise, who sets these rules that the omnipotent God must follow? Who says the only way He can accomplish that later greater good is to allow the present bad situation to develop?
Did you change something? A creature A that is identical to creature B except that it does not sin is superior. This is not the comparison Augustine makes. He says that a creature A which is inferior in numerous ways to creature B is inferior.
Big whoop. A horse which has free will but does not run away is better than a runaway horse. A horse which does not run away because it has no free will is better than a runaway horse. Those are the comparisons which Augustine ignores, much to the detriment of his argument. Also, He would have to make the argument that Free Will is intrinsically good in order to counter the evil of the sin the creature with free will might commit.
He has not established any such intrinsic goodness for Free Will whose very existence has not been established, BTW. Chuck September 13, at am lukeprog : Chuck,But you said we must find an evil that only God could have performed. Let me be more precise. Suppose that Gravity is the specific evil that we observe.
Throughout history, It has caused untold suffering to countless billions. But Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe, so if there was a designer-god, then he is directly responsible. How could it be otherwise? We can all be atheists where Gravity exists, even though God does not. Suppose also this rapist tells you that he had excellent reasons for raping his victims—even moral reasons—but he cannot share them with you.
What rational human would willingly submit to him? Good in greater or lesser degrees would imply the presence of some evil in the mix. Even if a person chooses heaven by freewill, is the freewill then taken away? If so, why was the initial choice necessary, if freewill is no longer required?
Great improvement in commenting. I suggest that with this comment form you add in a header saying what html is accepted and we can immediately see the results.
This solution is good enough IMHO. Modern neuroscience has destroyed the soul. Dilbert sums it up nicely. I guess you could ignore the science and cling to free will. Kinda like a YEC clings to Genesis.
Evil and omnipotence mackie essay
Evil and omnipotence mackie essay The problem of evil essay Essays. Essays on evil and omnipotence writinggroups web fc com Thingsconservativessay com Inside. The possibility of evil essay phil problem of evil essay pdf. Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence Mackie in his paper Thingsconservativessay com.
Philosophical Analysis of Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” Essay
Mackie adds two more principles which make the three propositions formally logically contradictory: If something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can. If something is omnipotent, it can do anything. Mackie thinks that these two principles are plausible and that most theists would agree with them. Using these, we can deduce a contradiction from the three propositions we started with.
Evil And Omnipotence Summary
Mackie went about it all wrong. All you have to do is find a single evil act that can only be attributed to God supposing he exists. If God is all good, then he can do no evil. X is evil. If God exists, then God would have to have done X. Therefore, God does not exist. Is the theist prepared to argue God can act has acted against his nature?