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.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Published (Last):||17 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||3.28 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I didn’t have the FWD in mind, actually. From 9 through 11 we can infer: Responding to this formulation of the problem requires much more than simply describing a logically possible scenario in which God and evil co-exist. No times can be assigned to his actions.
Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Both worlds are populated by creatures with free will and in neither world does God wnd determine people to always choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong. Evil is necessary as a means to good. Other solutions to the problem include John Hick’s soul-making onmipotence. God is not bound by causal laws. The universe is better with some evil in it than it would be if there were no evil.
Rejecting c –existence of evil. As an all-around response to the problem of evil, the Free Will Defense does not offer us much in mavkie way of explanation. The sin of Adam and Eve was a moral evil. The most that can be concluded is that either God does not exist or God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
She claims that a world full of evil and suffering is “conducive to bringing about both the initial human [receipt of God’s gift of salvation] and also the subsequent process of sanctification” Stumpp. In order to answer these questions, let’s briefly consider what it would take for any response to the logical problem of evil to be successful.
Jackie Clark, Kelly James. If, as theists must surely maintain, God does possess morally significant freedom, then perhaps this sort of freedom does not preclude an inability to choose what is wrong.
Evil and Omnipotence
Something is dreadfully wrong with our world. An implicit assumption behind this part of the debate over the logical problem of evil mackue the following: Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but there is no way that all of them could be true.
They may all be false or some may be true and others false. Journalist and best-selling author Lee Strobel commissioned George Barna, the public-opinion pollster, to conduct a nationwide survey.
Madden, Edward and Peter Hare. Ebil scholars maintain that Plantinga has rejected the idea mqckie an omnipotent God because he claims there are some things Mackue cannot do—namely, logically impossible things. Does it succeed in solving the logical problem of evil as it pertains to either moral or natural evil? I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process.
If for red to exist some non-red must, a tiny spec would be enough. So, the existence of evil and suffering makes theists’ belief in the existence of a perfect God irrational. Special attention is given to the free will defense, which has been the most widely discussed theistic response to the logical problem of evil.
Logical Problem of Evil
In other words, 1 through 4 form a logically inconsistent set. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and perfectly good.
Added to PP index Total downloads 1, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1, of 2, How omnipoetnce I increase my downloads? So God could have made everything good, though if he did we would not notice it. What should we make of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense? Statement 14 is simply the conjunction of 1 through 3 and expresses the central belief of classical theism. Someone in my Myspace group shared this website with us so I came to check it out. Moreover, when they do wrong, they can be rightly blamed or punished for their actions.
Plantinga can’t put all the blame for pain and suffering on human beings.
As Flewp. According to orthodox theism, all of the following statements and many more like them are true. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so So, the objection goes, even if Plantinga’s Free Will Defense explains why God allows moral evil, it does not evik why he allows natural evil.
Divine Omnipotence in Philosophy of Religion.