Evil In Mackie's Argument Of Evil

1041 Words5 Pages
Mackie’s Argument of Evil is persuasive mainly because it is easy to believe that evil exists in the world, leading to the standpoint that God does not. The argument delineates a vivid statement, but it is difficult to believe that God doesn’t exist mainly due to religious beliefs. Most religions believe in at least some sort of God while others do not believe in one at all. However, who is to say which religion is the correct religion? In fact, as of now we have no proof as to which religion is actually true- we have no factual evidence, hence the term philosophy. Philosophy is nonfactual in the sense that if we knew the answers, it would no longer be considered philosophy, it would then fall into a category of per se, biology, physics, etc.…show more content…
A basic idea of the argument underlies three propositions: God is all powerful (omnipotent), God is good (perfectly), and the world contains evil. However, if any of the three prove to be inconsistent, then not all can be true. In other words, if any two of the three prove to be true, then the third must be false. For instance, if the world contains evil, the Argument of Evil declares that there may not be a traditional theist God who is both good and omnipotent (Lecture). Evil is occasionally believed to be a privation which means it’s the absence of good. For example, evil is to good as cold is to warmth. However, a counterargument may support evil’s way of being perceived as an illusion in the sense that it is not…show more content…
A counterargument may introduce the assertion that an omnipotent being may not obtain absolute power in the logical sense. In other words, the being may not necessarily be unlimited or even entirely powerful. However, how can one even prove that God is all powerful or all willing or even all good? As one delves further into premise one, one may notice a contradiction. Furthermore, if an omnipotent being can do everything that is logically possible, then an inability to do logically impossible things will not limit his or her power. Not even an omnibenevolent being can pose true assertions because it’s logically impossible to make the exact same thing both true and false (Lecture). The idea of going back and forth between contradicting arguments pertains to the philosophical method called ‘ping pong.’ Premises two and five pose faults pertaining to the argument. Premise two consists of a problem because if god is omnibenevolent then wouldn’t he create the best world that he possibly can? Premise five introduces the question: couldn’t there be worlds without evil or less evil (Lecture)? This leads to the idea that the world might not be the best of all possible worlds; therefore, God did not create the best of all the possible worlds (Lecture). However, the Argument of Evil may continue to ‘ping pong’ to defend these

More about Evil In Mackie's Argument Of Evil

Open Document