Mackie's Argumentative Analysis
What is the Problem of Evil? Is it reasonable to believe a Perfectly Good God, or even a Good God exists if there is suffering in the world?
John L. Mackie claims that theorists are irrational because as an all good omnipotent being cannot allow evil to exist. Mackie says, “In,its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 101). He expounds by saying if any two of these statements are believed to be factual, the third has to be false. Mackie states evil is a conflicting characteristic of an all good and all-powerful God and is making a logical argument against the theistic perspective that all three can be true; God 's omnipotence and wholly goodness …show more content…
From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 101). To describe evil I will use Dostoevsky’s projected definition that evil is the suffering of the innocent. Mackie’s stance is that a good, omnipotent being would eliminate evil entirely, and therefore it is impossible that a good omnipotent being exists while there is still evil in the world. Dostoesky states a belief that a “good” God would not allow the brutal suffering of …show more content…
He proposes four fallacious solutions to discredit the belief that God is all powerful and/or all good. Mackie’s first solution is “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is a necessary counterpart to good” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 102). He compares good and evil to great and small, stating maybe humans need the opposites to measure actions as good or evil. He then talks of evil as a compliment to good, using the color red to explain that God could have made everything good, but we would not have noticed if all things were red or good. That is to say that “evil exists, but only enough to serve as the counterpart to good” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 102). His second possible solution is “Evil is necessary as a means to good” (p. 102).His question then is if God is bound by such common laws or such logic necessities, is He all-powerful? Third “the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil” (p.102). Mackie discusses the possibility of good overpowering evil being better than unchallenged good. He presents evil as pain and he calls misery and pain the first order of evil and pleasure and happiness the first order of good. Mackie then describes a second order of good that comes from the first order of evil which is supposed to make good from the first level of evil, but that just proves that there is evil, so God’s goodness is like a third level good that maximizes
John L. Mackie claims that theorists are irrational because as an all good omnipotent being cannot allow evil to exist. Mackie says, “In,its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 101). He expounds by saying if any two of these statements are believed to be factual, the third has to be false. Mackie states evil is a conflicting characteristic of an all good and all-powerful God and is making a logical argument against the theistic perspective that all three can be true; God 's omnipotence and wholly goodness …show more content…
From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 101). To describe evil I will use Dostoevsky’s projected definition that evil is the suffering of the innocent. Mackie’s stance is that a good, omnipotent being would eliminate evil entirely, and therefore it is impossible that a good omnipotent being exists while there is still evil in the world. Dostoesky states a belief that a “good” God would not allow the brutal suffering of …show more content…
He proposes four fallacious solutions to discredit the belief that God is all powerful and/or all good. Mackie’s first solution is “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is a necessary counterpart to good” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 102). He compares good and evil to great and small, stating maybe humans need the opposites to measure actions as good or evil. He then talks of evil as a compliment to good, using the color red to explain that God could have made everything good, but we would not have noticed if all things were red or good. That is to say that “evil exists, but only enough to serve as the counterpart to good” (Feinberg & Shaffer-Landau, 2013, p. 102). His second possible solution is “Evil is necessary as a means to good” (p. 102).His question then is if God is bound by such common laws or such logic necessities, is He all-powerful? Third “the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil” (p.102). Mackie discusses the possibility of good overpowering evil being better than unchallenged good. He presents evil as pain and he calls misery and pain the first order of evil and pleasure and happiness the first order of good. Mackie then describes a second order of good that comes from the first order of evil which is supposed to make good from the first level of evil, but that just proves that there is evil, so God’s goodness is like a third level good that maximizes