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. Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all . The logical problem of evil claims that God’s omnipotence, omniscience and. 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):||11 November 2014|
|PDF File Size:||18.13 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Was Plantinga’s Victory Too Easy?
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 evik and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue….
Tragedy and Redress in Western Literature: Omhipotence Philosophical Perspectiveby Richard Gaskin. Popular Questions Thesis statement and compare contrast essay asked by Admin What is a good thesis statement against euthanasia asked by Anonymous Gender stereotypes persuasive essay asked by Admin Which of the following would best work as the title of an explanatory essay?
God is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Since MSR1 and MSR2 together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and moral and natural evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil. Mass murderers and serial killers typically have reasons for why they commit horrible crimes, but they do not have good reasons.
Garden City, New York: They will also be able to guess why a different reason was chosen in this article. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Logical Problem of Evil
So, W 1 is clearly possible. Mackie rejects claim that any quality must have a real opposite.
Although Plantinga claimed that his Free Will Defense offered merely possible and not necessarily actual 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.
Does it succeed in solving the logical problem of evil as it pertains to either moral or natural evil? How would my free will be compromised if tomorrow God completely eliminated cancer from the face of the Earth?
He can create a world with free creatures or he can causally determine creatures to choose what is right and to avoid omnipoyence is wrong every time; but he can’t do both. Evil and the Many Universes Response. Special attention is given to the free will defense, which has been the most widely discussed theistic response to the logical problem of evil. In response to this formulation of the problem of evil, Plantinga showed that this charge of inconsistency was mistaken.
Many atheologians believe that God could have created a world that was populated with free creatures and yet did not contain any evil or suffering.
Critiques on J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence”
So if God had to introduce evil as a means to good, he must be subject to some causal laws. Rejecting c –existence of evil. So, if it is plausible to think that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense mqckie the logical problem of evil as it pertains to moral evil, the current suggestion is that it is plausible also to think that it solves the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil because all of the worlds evils have their source in moral evil.
Have you read Plantinga?
In response to the ‘logical’ argument from evil, the proposition summarised by Howard-Snyder I don’t actually know who first formulated it: Some might think that MSR2 is simply too far-fetched to be taken seriously. This objection leads us to draw a distinction between the following two kinds of evil and suffering:.
Although sketching out mere possibilities without giving them any evidential support is typically an unsatisfactory thing to do in philosophy, it is not clear that Mackie’s unhappiness with Plantinga is completely warranted. Statement 14 is simply the omhipotence of 1 through 3 and expresses the central belief of classical theism. Even though it is widely agreed that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense describes a state of affairs that is logically possible, some of the details of his defense seem to conflict with important theistic doctrines.
J. L. Mackie, Evil and omnipotence – PhilPapers
They could never be praiseworthy. If you can conceive of a state of affairs without there being anything contradictory about what you’re imagining, then that state of affairs must be possible. Username or Email or login with. In other words, 1 through 4 form a logically inconsistent set.
I’d be interested in anything recent still arguing for the logical argument which addresses this though? Moreover, when they do wrong, they can be rightly blamed or punished for their actions.