An Analysis Of John Hick's Evil And Omnipotence

The question stands: how is it that a seemingly flawless deity allows evil and sin in the world? Is it possible? These questions and beyond will be opened up for further discussion, rather than a simple answer with the works of J. L. Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence and John Hick’s An Irenaean Theodicy. These philosophers may not have all the answers, but they have an argument--whether it is sufficient enough or not is open to interpretation. Their arguments seem to reason one side or the other--God cannot exist or God most definitely does exist.

J. L. Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence article argues that God cannot exist if He is omnipotent, if He is supremely good, and that evil exists in the world he created. Mackie explains to the reader that …show more content…
Evil is necessary for people to exist. He does not seem to like the challenging against God--that God should not be questioned. Hick explains that God is responsible for creating the world, but not for how things have gone wrong. In addition, he contradicts the argument that God could have created a wholly good person; to be a wholly good person would take away freedom. If freedom is taken away, then it contradicts what it means to be a human in this world. He goes on to explain the process of soul-making. Hick argues that if there was no evil in the world--there would be no sense of balance. If there was no pain and suffering, then there would be no need for human traits such as courage and kindness. Hick believes that we need the heartache in the world for things to happen as part of God’s …show more content…
However, this argument brings up many issues--especially to those who have little to no faith in God. For example, can Hick’s argument really justify such horrific tragedies as the Las Vegas Shooting of 2017 or the very recent Florida High School Shooting? Tons of innocent people dying unjustly is part of God’s plan? People of today, people of 2018, are not satisfied with these occurrences. For the most part, the families and friends of the victims do not see their loved one as having a brighter future. People live in the present. All they know is that their loved one is dead--that is all. This is where some may see Hick’s argument falls short. This suffering is allowed by a “loving God.” Hick partially addresses why it is authorized that moral beings suffer under God’s power. By saying, “God has set us in a world containing unpredictable contingencies and dangers, in which unexpected and undeserved calamities may occur to anyone; because only in such a world can mutual caring and love be elicited”(106). Hick recognizes that this may not be comforting as tragedies occur, but argues that God has a plan and that there is life after death. That there is somewhere