Introduction In this paper, I will break apart J. L. Mackie’s stern defense of the logical problem of evil, which he uses to suggest the God does not exist. I will attempt to defend the notion that both God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that freewill is the answer. Furthermore, I will strengthen the argument for freewill against Mackie’s defense, which suggests that the argument of freewill also compromises the Omni-three nature of God. In part, I will back freewill by using Mackie’s own logic against him. In its totality, I will build up a strong force against the logical problem of evil, leaving room for both the existence of human formed evil and God in this world under the umbrella
…show more content…
As I will be using it, freewill is an individual’s ability to make choices. Yet, to say that our choices are not guided, I argue is incorrect. For instance, I believe that one’s natural instinct to remove his hand from a hot surface can be seen as a guide to good behavior. Basically, the impulse to get away from the surface is says that “putting your hand near fiery hot objects is dangerous” and that “it’s probably safer to keep away”. Of course for freewill to still exist, that suggestion must be taken in many way, which indeed it is. Most people will oblige the suggestion by keep hot surfaces at a distance. At the same time, some will ignore it briefly to play with matched and, to the extreme, others will straight up go against it by burning themselves. In all facets of life, there are varying degrees of freedom from the guides put in place. The ability to divert from these guides constitutes freewill. The guides themselves represent in my opinion an outline of good behavior impressment upon the world by an omnibenevolent God. That God wants the greatest good. However, to limit the degrees of freedom from which people can diverge is to limit freewill and to ultimately limit the quality of the resulting good, which I will dive into more in just a bit. The main point here is that people can choose otherwise and, thus they can choice to be evil, resulting in a world were evil …show more content…
Yes, God is omnipotent. But if it is true that men were created in the image of God, that, too, would mean that God is in the image of us. To my knowledge, it is the mind that controls the body. Therefore, I presume it must be God’s omniscience, a quality of the mind, that controls his omnipotence, a quality of the body. Both Mackie’s logical problem of evil and his further dismissal of the freewill hypothesis incorrectly focus on God in terms of his power, not of the knowledge that controls it. I will not make the same mistake. So, I will regard every exertion of power as an exertion of knowledge for God must have reasons behind exerting power. If there is no smart reason to exert power, as is the case for the freewill system, no exertion of power should be expected. God must first fulfill his omniscience. His omnipotence is a secondary action that can still remain in tacked regardless of use. For instance, I know it is probably a dumb idea to punch another, so I do not. But just by holding back from action, does not mean I am incapable of it. It merely means my mind thought it better to suspend action. In this way, God can think it better to suspend control over
As I will be using it, freewill is an individual’s ability to make choices. Yet, to say that our choices are not guided, I argue is incorrect. For instance, I believe that one’s natural instinct to remove his hand from a hot surface can be seen as a guide to good behavior. Basically, the impulse to get away from the surface is says that “putting your hand near fiery hot objects is dangerous” and that “it’s probably safer to keep away”. Of course for freewill to still exist, that suggestion must be taken in many way, which indeed it is. Most people will oblige the suggestion by keep hot surfaces at a distance. At the same time, some will ignore it briefly to play with matched and, to the extreme, others will straight up go against it by burning themselves. In all facets of life, there are varying degrees of freedom from the guides put in place. The ability to divert from these guides constitutes freewill. The guides themselves represent in my opinion an outline of good behavior impressment upon the world by an omnibenevolent God. That God wants the greatest good. However, to limit the degrees of freedom from which people can diverge is to limit freewill and to ultimately limit the quality of the resulting good, which I will dive into more in just a bit. The main point here is that people can choose otherwise and, thus they can choice to be evil, resulting in a world were evil …show more content…
Yes, God is omnipotent. But if it is true that men were created in the image of God, that, too, would mean that God is in the image of us. To my knowledge, it is the mind that controls the body. Therefore, I presume it must be God’s omniscience, a quality of the mind, that controls his omnipotence, a quality of the body. Both Mackie’s logical problem of evil and his further dismissal of the freewill hypothesis incorrectly focus on God in terms of his power, not of the knowledge that controls it. I will not make the same mistake. So, I will regard every exertion of power as an exertion of knowledge for God must have reasons behind exerting power. If there is no smart reason to exert power, as is the case for the freewill system, no exertion of power should be expected. God must first fulfill his omniscience. His omnipotence is a secondary action that can still remain in tacked regardless of use. For instance, I know it is probably a dumb idea to punch another, so I do not. But just by holding back from action, does not mean I am incapable of it. It merely means my mind thought it better to suspend action. In this way, God can think it better to suspend control over