John Leslie Mackie's Response To The Problem Of Evil

This seems to demonstrate that evil offers the opportunity for good to occur, however, the problem arrises when one realizes that this initial evil of suffering also creates secondary evils, such as callousness. In reality, a minority of individuals will actually help this person, whereas most people will not offer any form of assistance, which is evil. Mackie’s last rebuttal regarding free will is his weakest claim. It is not free will if one does not have the personal decision to choose to commit a wrong act. That is as if god creates a world where poor grades don’t exist because everyone always chooses to study for their exams.

The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional

The Problem of Evil questions the existence of evil in a world constructed by a seemingly omniscient God. Evil’s existence in a world with a God that is both benevolent and all-knowing is within itself a paradox. Therefore, a God that is omnipotent cannot exist with evil being present in the world. I argue that Leibniz’s argument for the Problem of Evil outclasses that of the likes of John Perry’s because Leibniz’s argument states that evil is a result of there being a need for a greater rather than a limitation on God’s power. Leibniz’s main position in addressing the Problem of Evil is that the world with evil is more than likely better than the world without evil due to evil being often accompanied by a greater good or meaning.

Since the discovery of philosophy by the Greek civilizations man has always tried to find the cause of many fundamental problems that are connected to the reality and existence of factors that contribute to these dilemmas but still remain unknown to humanity. One of the most controversial questions philosophy tries to answer is the origin of what we consider evil, who or what is connected to the main cause of the pain and suffering that goes on throughout the world. “Evil is when one purposefully causes pain, not pain caused by fault, knowing something is morally wrong, but still proceeds in doing so. Simply by the definition of evil,

God allows evil to exist because evil is absorbed by greater good. (John Mackie). Specifically, if free will exists then people have the choice to either choose good or evil. The benefit of having free will outweighs the disadvantage of the possibility of the evil option being chosen, and thus allows for the existence of evil, supporting the reality of god. If we are free to choose, even though we may choose evil, the evil is absorbed by the benefit of free will. John Mackie presented the absorption argument, which was used to argue for the theist reply to the problem of evil.

The Problem of Evil The definition of evil (as a noun) is something that is harmful, or undesirable; Mackie seeks to disprove the theistic arguments for the existence of God by identifying a logical inconsistency that he calls the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one that exists for those theologians who believe that God is both wholly good and omnipotent. Following that belief, if God were to be both wholly good, and omnipotent, evil would not exist, and yet it unarguably does. His argument is that if God is omnipotent he would then have the power to prevent and remove all evil, and, Him being wholly good, would do so insofar as something that is wholly good would always seek to remove evil.

The problem of evil as suffering is a problem of what to do with the obstacle for the believer but also an obstacle to unbeliever to converge because they do not think it harmonising. In contradiction to compatibility, an atheist often suggested that the present of evil entails the absence of God. Atheist argued, if God exists, then as an omnipotent, he is able to prevent the evil occurrence. For omniscient, it implies under any circumstances evil will occur if he does not act. Then, being perfectly good, he will prevent its occurrence and so evil will not exist. Based on this above proclamation, the existence of God does not compatible with the evil of whatever kind. However, theists response to this logical problem of evil by an atheist is that necessarily perfectly good being, foreseeing the occurrence of evil and able to prevent it, will prevent evil. The essay will first, define what evil is according to Swinburne as one of the philosopher of religion, Second, Swinburne four categories of evil will be discussed (Physical evil, mental evil, state evil, moral evil). Third, Phillip logical and existential problem evil will be discussed through. How will all these above assertions be a problem to those that and does not believe in God.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

Throughout history, humans have displayed beliefs in the existence of some sort of higher being. The existence of God gives an explanation of why the world is the way it is and is a reassurance for life after death. However, even believers of a deity find themselves questioning their own god, asking themselves, “If there is so much suffering in the world, how can God exist?” and this is understandable. Suffering is defined as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Theorists have attempted to answer this question, some arguing for the existence of God and some arguing against it, but there’s no real way to answer this question. After all, there’s no definite proof of God’s existence in the world. Two dominant arguments for the existence of

Another view on suffering brought by theist is the suffering can lead to a greater spiritual good. In order to gain spiritual guidance, there has to be suffering involved. The agonizing struggle brought by human’s free choice is debated since it can only be prevented by an individual’s free choice. But not all suffering is created by human’s free choice. Individuals have no control over the amount of sorrow that is brought upon them. Without warning, natural disaster brings suffering even if people are trying their best in order to prevent any kind of unhappiness. How could theist know the meaning of such suffering and its purpose? By trusting that the meaning of suffering is only known after death, how can theist surely agree if none of them have experienced the afterlife?

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

The beauty of the problem of evil is its simplicity. David Hume displays the problem well by questioning the existence of God and evil. For, if both God and evil exist, God must either be “willing to prevent evil, but not able” or “able, but not willing”. Hume shows that there seems to be a problem with God and evil coexisting. For, with an all good entity

Why Does God allow suffering? This question is probably as old as religion itself. It is a stumbling block for some of us, and for many more at given moments of tragedy. There are as many answers to this question as there are people who care to engage in theological dialogue. One understanding is that yes, God allows "bad" things to happen; God does not cause them to happen.