NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In a strong argument for atheism, J. L. Mackie presents the argument from evil. His logical argument for evil is comprised of showing theists beliefs to be inconsistent.
He states that God being omnipotent and omni-benevolent is contradictory with the existence of evil. Though his argument seems to be a good one, Mackie does provide four responses, or theodicies that are possible solutions to the problem of evil. Three of these are that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good, evil is a necessary means to good, and that the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil, which can be seen as deceptive. On the other hand, the fourth possible solution is the theodicy that evil is due to human free will, which since is not under Gods jurisdiction, can be consistent with the coexistence of Gods omni-benevolence, His omni-potency and the existence of evil. However, I believe that the success of this solution is also based upon the definition of Gods omnipotence.
According to Mackie's definition of omnipotence, I will now proceed to explore why I believe God is not omnipotent and that evil is in fact incompatible with the existence of God. The point of Mackie's argument is not to prove that God does not exist, but to show the inconsistency of what theists believe, which could then lead to further arguments to determine if God actually exists. The definition of God according to a theist is that God is perfection, which then leads to God being omni-benevolent or all good, omniscient, or all knowing, and omnipotent or all powerful. Mackie looks into Gods omni-benevolence and omni-potency and deems these characteristics of God to be inconsistent with the fact that there is evil in the world, meaning that these three propositions cannot all be true at once. He then logically explains that since God is omni-benevolent, he would want to bring about only good. In addition to that, He being omni-potent should then be a reason that God would have the power to bring about only good.
But evil does exist in this world, which means that either God is not omni-benevolent or He is not omnipotent. This is the problem of evil. The two ways a theist can argue for their beliefs is either to give one of them up, or to offer a theodicy. A theodicy is an argument for why God lets evil exist or why he does not prevent it if he is omnipotent. There are four theodicies that Mackie discusses and deems fallacious solutions (Mackie, 104). The first solution he thinks a theist would try is that good cannot exist without evil or evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
This seems quite plausible because a natural analogy would be to say that light cannot exist without dark or cold cannot exist without heat. One might call it a rule of opposites. Unfortunately there are faults that can be found with this argument. For instance, the counterpart to good could be the absence of good, but does not necessarily have to be evil. There could be degrees of good that could even be seen as neutral and then there would be no evil. Analogous to this, one might choose to help a person in degrees, but not helping them could not be considered evil.
Therefore, this argument fails. Another theodicy that seems a hopeful solution is that evil is necessary means to good. This argument is basically saying that evil sometimes need to be done so that good can come about. An example would be a dentist pulling out a decayed tooth to save the health of ones mouth. He has to hurt someone to end with a benefit to that person. An atheist would not counter with trying to prove this incorrect, but would just reply with the obvious fact that if God is truly omnipotent why could he just not make a way to arrive at the good without the evil.
Were God truly all powerful, there would be a way to remove the decayed tooth without any pain. So, the proposition that God is omni-potent still fails. A third theodicy with which a theist could argue is one that states the universe would be better with some evil in it than it would be with no evil. A way to interpret this theodicy would be that some evil begets good, such as pain and hardship inspiring courage and heroism. But the objection to this attempt of a response is to ask what about the higher order evils such as cruelty, what good would those inspire?
And so, if God were truly wholly good he would not make evils that would not inspire any good, so he cannot be omni-benevolent by this argument. In short, these theodicies begin to respond to Mackie's argument on the problem of evil but are not adequate solutions. But there exists a fourth theodicy that seems to relieve God of the burden of evil by stating that evil is due to human free will. This statement implies that evil is caused by choice, and humans are the ones who create evil. It suggests that the responsibility of evil is not Gods, so the three propositions can be consistent.
One might be ready to accept this argument except for the fact that though humans can choose whether to do evil or not, there is always a possibility to always choose to do good. Since this possibility exists, one has to again admit that God is not omni-benevolent because he isnt making everyone choose only good, or that he is not omnipotent because he does not have the power to make people choose to always do good. Not wanting to leave it at that a theist would reply that if God did exercise the power to make humans do good all the time, free will would cease to exist. So in this regard, evil seems completely compatible with Gods omni-benevolence and omnipotence. But since the possibility of good always being chosen still exists, it is still a situation that God cant bring about it make happen, so he cannot be omnipotent. The theist will vehemently argue that it is logically impossible for God to force people to do only good because that goes against the very definition of free will.
Mackie reiterates the fact that either way, there is still a situation God has no control over, so it stands that he isnt omnipotent. I would agree with Mackie on this, except for the fact that I believe the definition of omnipotence is using is too harsh in expecting an omnipotent being to be able to do something even logically impossible. For example, can God build a tower that no one can climb? If so, even God would not be able to climb that tower, and to Mackie it would again look like God is not omnipotent since he still cannot do something. A way to argue this would be that God would never even create such an impossible situation in which he could not take an action.
But even then the problem is that even the slightest possibility of God taking an action that would lead to his inability to act exists. And one cant say that God cant create such a state of affairs, because to do so would be to agree with God not being omnipotent. Either which way, Gods omnipotence would somehow be restricted. Given this, it becomes necessary to ask whether a being could ever be truly omnipotent, and from Mackie's argument it can be concluded that no being can be omnipotent, including God. So all in all, it doesnt look like a theist can argue his position any further. In arguing that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God, Mackie rejects all four theodicies that could have been solutions to the problem of evil.
Each of the theodicies could be argued against because they all come back to the fact that God cannot be omni-benevolent and omnipotent simultaneously in response to each of those arguments. The only way to respond to the problem of evil could have been by relieving God of the burden of evil by placing it on humans, but even that does not work because God would still have been an indirect cause of the evil we do. Though the free will theodicy seems like the best bet for a theist since it shows compatibility of the three propositions in question, it cannot argue against the final conclusion that no being can be omnipotent based on our definition of the word.
Free research essays on topics related to: existence of evil, existence of god, power to make, omnipotent, problem of evil
Research essay sample on Problem Of Evil Existence Of Evil
