This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
Humans have the ability to stop there from being evil but choose not to. Next arises the question if there is free will, why is there natural evil? The most suitable solution to this question is as consequences of humans moral evil there is natural evil and suffering. Without freewill we would not be morally responsible or capable or loving or God. A robot made to love is not worth much compared to a living being who chooses to love!
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. The other possible outcome is to say that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that can exist or that an omnipotent
Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.
If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
1) “Without God, there would be no universally valid morality.” ( Pojman, pg. 356) “He is the creator of the moral law, and defines its very nature.” ( Pojman, Pg.356) “‘If God doesn’t exist, everything is permissible’ nothing is forbidden or require. Without God we have moral nihilism” (Pojman, Pg.356) “We are against torturing the innocent because it is cruel and unjust, just as God is against torturing the innocent because it is cruel and unjust. If there is no God, on this account, nothing is changed. Morality is left intact, and both theists and nontheists have the same moral duties” ( Pojman, Pg.357) 2) From my understanding of what this quote trying to say is that without God, there will never be morality and they are saying that he
Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will
Why the Problem of Evil Suggests There is No God The typical definition of God is an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good being. A perfectly good God is expected to protect His creations from evil and/or stop any form of it from happening, but that is not the case in our world. People are responsible for so much pain and suffering today that the problem of evil as John Hick explained is the most believable explanation as to why I do not think there is a God. Hick states that God is universally described as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These three facts should make the world seem like paradise, but that is obviously not the case.
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that