Alive today, Alvin Plantinga is an American analytical philosopher. Alvin Plantinga argues with the topic the problem with evil, referencing John Mackie’s conclusion who argues against the existence of God with Evil and Omnipotence. Plantinga thinks those who believe like Mackie are mistaken in thinking that the existence of evil is contradictory with the existence of God. Plantinga believes that there is no logical unpredictability between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God. Plantinga describes sets of propositions may or may not be contradictory and/or to be inconsistent.
First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good. This argument can be set up as following: 1. If God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there is no evil in this world. 2. Obviously,
However, if mental love chooses to turn towards evil, then it is turning against God. “As long as it’s directed toward the First Good… those whom He made have worked against their Maker.” (Purg. 17. 97-102) However, to direct mental love towards the First good can never be easy, for mental love involves the free will, and man’s free will always has that tendency to turn towards evil than what is really
In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie explains that evil is only a problem for those who believe in God. Mackie further says that God being omnipotent and wholly good while evil exists is contradictory. This raises questions about how could a wholly good being exist but also have evil around and why would it exist if God could allow evil to happen. Mackie then goes into explain solutions so that “omnipotence,” “wholly good,” and “evil” stop contradicting each other. Mackie says the only way to believe that evil exists, if you do believe that evil does in fact exist, is to either say God is not wholly good or not as omnipotent.
William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.
Evil must be your only happiness.” That is to say evil dwells in everyone’s mind. Like Goodman Brown, people usually think the depravity of human must be caused by evil other than themselves. Here, the story allegorizes that it is our human nature that results in the fatal mistake. R.H. Fogle writes, “Goodman Brown, a simple and pious nature, is wrecked as a result of disappearance of the fixed poles of his belief. His orderly cosmos dissolves into chaos as church and state, the twin pillars of the society, are hinted to be rotten, with their foundations undermined.”(Hurley) When Goodman Brown suddenly realizes that all his fellow men, including his mentor of youth, the priest in the church…, have become converts of Devil, he is in an extremely desperate state, not knowing who to believe ever after.
He cites Ephesians 2:3 which states, we are now born deserving God’s anger, with an injured nature so that our will is unable to keep us from sin except for the grace of God. Our defective state is punishment because of Adam’s free choice that made humans sinful. Therefore, we are either unable to will or unable to know how to do the right any more. Augustine argues that we are no longer free to choose right and wrong, because we are slaves to sin. Freedom can only be re-attained through God, through Whom, by grace, we shall be free indeed.
“Condemned to be free,” a quote from Jean- Paul Sartre, a atheistic existentialism philosopher who had a different view on human nature also known as existentialism. Sartre strongly believed that humans were free to create their own nature without a God, and were not made to have a purpose in life (pg. 67). I found this philosopher very interesting because I agree with believing that humans are fully responsible for their own actions. In addition, as Sartre stated, “we must suffer the anguish of own decision making and accept responsibility for its consequences,” which means that even though humans have the right to make their own choices, they also have to be responsible for the pain that comes along with it (pg.67).
‘Iago is such a disturbing villain because he seems to have no real motives for his evil.’ How far and in what ways do you agree with this view? Iago is nothing more than a devious mastermind and Machiavellian of the Shakespearean tragedy, Othello. Whilst Iago does try to communicate multiple reasons for his motives in wanting to destroy Cassio and Othello these are mere rationalisations and excuses to provide justification for his evil actions and can only be accepted when analysing Othello on a surface level. Looking into Othello further we can see that Iago is a power thirsty character that dwells in his corruption and evil which makes him such a disturbing villain. Iago gives a sheer numbers of excuses to try and prove his ulterior motives, conveniently adding new reasons for his hate every time he needs to encourage Roderigo to do something for him.
Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.
I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.
I believe every man was born with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Although we might want to justify his argument by considering a situation where what someone thinks is right might be what another person 's classif as wrong, but in a situation whereby the sinner accepted his wrong doing and come forward to seek a forgiveness; that is to say, He already acknowledged that he did something terrible. so therefore the argument of “what wrong for someone is right for another” cannot justify Luther 's opinion on this because He (Luther) presumed that
He then defines the differences between a just law and an unjust law. He points out that a just law is a moral law or a law of God, and that an unjust law is a law that is dissonant with the moral law. Unjust laws do not have there foundations in eternal law nor natural law (par. 16). He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law.
If God is an all loving God how can he allow for evil to exist? Philosopher J. L. Mackie argues that “the existence of evil and the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God are logically incompatible. And since we know evil exists, therefore God must not exist” (Muehlhauser). In other words, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, how can he allow for evil to exist in the world? Per Mackie’s logic, it does not make sense that such a being who is wholly good would not eliminate evil.