Mackie begins his article by stating that all arguments for the existence of God can be proven false. Mackie is targeting the theist with this argument, but states that the theist can still believe in God and accept the criticism. Mackie uses “the problem of evil” for his main argument. Mackie uses the problem of evil to show that the belief in God lacks rational support, and is essentially irrational. Mackie claims that the following sentences cannot all be true at the same time: “God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and yet evil exists”. Mackie is stating that these three sentences are inconsistent. If two of these sentences are true, then it follows that the third must be false. But for this to be true, there are assumptions that must
…show more content…
If all three sentences cannot be true together, than the theist can just take out one. For instance, the theist can deny that God is wholly good. But the problem with this is that the theist does not fully support this. The theist is only half-heartedly agreeing with this to avoid the problem of evil. Also, the theist could reject that there is evil in the world. If the theist was to truly believe that God was not wholly good, then he is opening doors to a sadistic God. Also, the theist could reject that God is not omnipotent. But the problem still remains of the theist not truly accepting that God is not all-powerful, and he cannot eliminate evil. The theist’s adequate solutions are not enough to get out of the problem of evil because he cannot fully accept the rejection of one proposition. Therefore, it is assumed that if the theist when discussing the problem of evil rejects the proposition, the proposition is then assumed elsewhere in the …show more content…
For this reason Mackie believes that they are of no help to the theist when trying to solve the problem of evil. One fallacious solution the theist offers is this: Good cannot exist without evil. This brings us back to the adequate solutions though, because by saying good cannot exist without evil than you are setting a limit to God’s power. Therefore, making God not omnipotent. Also, Mackie uses the example of comparing good and evil to red and non-red. Mackie states that if something is red, then there must exist something that is the exact opposite of it, non-red. This leads to thinking that everything must have a logical opposite, which Mackie believes is only a construction of our minds. Therefore, there is no reason that God would have to create evil in order for good to exist. But, the theist could counter that God created evil to teach us what good is. The question then arises of this: Why so much evil? Take the Holocaust for example, millions of Jews were slaughtered and tortured. God could teach us evil by something else that causes less suffering and cruelty, but yet did not. This brings us back to the problem of evil because this infers that God is not wholly good. Again, this solution only solves the problem of evil by editing one of the propositions to where it
If all three sentences cannot be true together, than the theist can just take out one. For instance, the theist can deny that God is wholly good. But the problem with this is that the theist does not fully support this. The theist is only half-heartedly agreeing with this to avoid the problem of evil. Also, the theist could reject that there is evil in the world. If the theist was to truly believe that God was not wholly good, then he is opening doors to a sadistic God. Also, the theist could reject that God is not omnipotent. But the problem still remains of the theist not truly accepting that God is not all-powerful, and he cannot eliminate evil. The theist’s adequate solutions are not enough to get out of the problem of evil because he cannot fully accept the rejection of one proposition. Therefore, it is assumed that if the theist when discussing the problem of evil rejects the proposition, the proposition is then assumed elsewhere in the …show more content…
For this reason Mackie believes that they are of no help to the theist when trying to solve the problem of evil. One fallacious solution the theist offers is this: Good cannot exist without evil. This brings us back to the adequate solutions though, because by saying good cannot exist without evil than you are setting a limit to God’s power. Therefore, making God not omnipotent. Also, Mackie uses the example of comparing good and evil to red and non-red. Mackie states that if something is red, then there must exist something that is the exact opposite of it, non-red. This leads to thinking that everything must have a logical opposite, which Mackie believes is only a construction of our minds. Therefore, there is no reason that God would have to create evil in order for good to exist. But, the theist could counter that God created evil to teach us what good is. The question then arises of this: Why so much evil? Take the Holocaust for example, millions of Jews were slaughtered and tortured. God could teach us evil by something else that causes less suffering and cruelty, but yet did not. This brings us back to the problem of evil because this infers that God is not wholly good. Again, this solution only solves the problem of evil by editing one of the propositions to where it