John L. Mackie's Argument Against The Problem Of Evil

An Australian philosopher named John L. Mackie is widely known for his argument against the problem of evil. Mackie’s argument was very similar to the problem of evil. The problem of evil in summary states that a God cannot exist with the existence of evil, but Mackie’s argument was not that God did not exist entirely, but rather that God did not exist as an all-powerful or perfect God. He argued that having an all knowing God, and the present existence of evil were both logically inconsistent. Mackie thought that if you could say one of those statements was false, then you could still believe in God’s existence. He thought that not a lot of people would be willing to compromise and accept one of those beliefs however, because if someone did they would be left with the conclusion that their high and all mighty God was in fact un-worthy of worshipping. After Mackie comes up with his own take on the problem of evil, he agrees with a lot of the points the problem of evil considers, and comes to the conclusion that the problem of evil is both inconsistent and illogical.
Mackie set out to disprove the common belief that God was in fact an “omnipotent and wholly god” by coming up with an argument. He breaks the problem down to three propositions. The …show more content…
A theist would counter this argument by saying “there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do.” This problem arises because with people believing in Mackie’s argument that omnipotence can be limited, it reduces their desire and will to worship God. All of Christianity is motivated to believe and worship by scripture that summarizes “through God anything is possible.” If Christians were led to believe that through even someone as powerful as God certain things were still impossible, it would lead them to lose their faith in