God's Omnipotence
The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.
In the beginning of Mackie's work he writes a brief introduction to fully expose the problem of evil, and to set guidelines for determining whether or not the problem applies to one. Mackie states that in his work one must be prepared to believe, not only what cannot be proved, but also what can be proven wrong from other beliefs one has. From this Mackie moves on to describe that the problem applies only to individual's who believe that there is a God who is omnipotent and wholly good. Mackie sets this guideline in order to eliminate the acceptions of individual's that the problem will not apply to. Now that Mackie has set the guideline to test whether the problem is applicable, he states the problem of evil in what he calls its 'simplest form.' Mackie states the problem as; God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil still exists. The problem with the phrase is that all three propositions cannot exist collectively. One can choose only two and it would cause the third to be false. Now that Mackie is nearing the end of his introduction he sets some rules concerning the terms 'good,' 'evil,' and 'omnipotent.' Mackie states that good is opposed to evil in a way that good always eliminates evil as best as it can and that...
... middle of paper ...
...ll to beings and he cannot now control them (defies first order omnipotence). From these distinctions Mackie comes to the end of solution (iv) and states that the only way to avoid the paradox would be to deny God as a continuing being. By doing this it eliminates the free will solution of evil and leads Mackie to his conclusion.
Mackie concludes his work by stating that through all the examined solutions there were none that proved to solve the problem of evil. He then states that there may be others to examine, but they will still lead to an invalid solution. After Mackies obvious conclusion that there is not a solution to the problem of evil he comments about the Paradox of Omnipotence. Mackie puts forth the questionability of whether God can be attributed to time at all, in which leads one to question whether omnipotence can be attributed to God at all.
Kreeft, Peter. (1988).“The Problem of Evil.” Chapter 7 in Fundamentals of the Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Carus, Paul. "The Philosophical Problem of Good and Evil." The History of the Devil: With 350
...erfect goodness and is morally good all the time. Paley's supreme being is never attributed with being a good or bad, loving or hateful, individual. A second important characteristic of God is that he is omniscient; he knows everything about anything there is to know; although Paley's supreme being is intelligent enough to engender the first creation, it does not imply that he knows about all the subsequent creations which rose from that first creation. Thirdly, God is considered to be all-powerful or omnipotent while the supreme being possesses the power to create the first creation. Lastly, God is an eternal being whose existence defies space and time. At the start of Paley's a posteriori argument, it was concluded that while anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator, such creator exists or has existed at one point in time but is by no means eternal.
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil. Evil is opposed to God’s will, eventually cumulating in the crucifixion of God’s son, Jesus. One must then wonder how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. A perfect God’s world should be similarly perfect. The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
Mackie wishes to disprove the existence of God, or at least the view of God being both omnipotent and wholly good, through an argument which uses the problem of the existence of evil. Here is how he lays the argument out: 1. Suppose there is a God, whom is composed of the above characteristics. 2. If this God is omnipotent, then there is no limit to His ability or what He can do. 3. If this God is wholly good then it would be assumed that He would want to eliminate evil completely. 4. If there was a God who knew evil existed, could eliminate evil, and wanted to eliminate evil then it would make logical sense that there would be no evil. 5. However, evil does exist. 6. Therefore an omnipotent and wholly good God cannot exist. This argument is analogous, say, to a master chef, in that this chef is capable of cooking only the best tasting food in the world, he is able to cook this way all the time, and he knows that people only like good tasting food. However, in this chef's restaurant there always seems to be some food that is vile tasting. But, if the Chef was able to cook the best tasting food all the time and he knew that people only wanted good tasting food, then we would have to surmise that this type of chef could not possibly exist. Again, Mackie's argument is not against the existence of God, but against the existence of a God that is composed of the characteristics of being omnipotent and wholly good.
In the Proslogion, Anselm tries to prove the existence of God and his powers through the ontological argument. This argument redirects the argument of God’s existence from science and observation to logic, where Anselm explains that there has to be a being that nothing greater can be thought of, and that is God. One of Anselm’s main topics of contention is God’s omnipotence and whether He is actually infinite. In the Proslogion, Anselm talks about God’s omnipotence and if it can be disavowed because of self-contradictory statements, how God’s non-action gives him more possibility and power, and how being all-powerful can lead to God being both merciful and yet not feel the pains of sinners.
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
My goal is to not disprove God’s existence, or to disprove that humankind can live in Union with God. My hope is to argue that our will which wills what it ought not to will is limited. I believe that every day we have the equal opportunity to make choices, both good and evil, and we are able to do this because of our free will. I am not arguing that our defective free wills do not exist, I want to argue that they are restricted.
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a machine in the world that could able project the image of a person choosing to do tomorrow. Wouldn’t that entail tomorrow this person must do what was known in advance? In the end, despite the planning and deliberating, this person must choose exactly as the machine projected. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: “Does free will exist, or it just merely an illusion?” But, no machine with such capability existed in this world, and the only one with such power is God. The argument of God’s omniscient and human free will has gone for thousands of years, the core of this argument is if God was claimed to be all-knowing, hence in possession of infallible foreknowledge of human actions, therefore, humans should not have free will. The concept of God is all-knowing and human have free will is inherently contradictory, therefore, they cannot coexist. This argument implicated predestination and often resonated with the dilemma of determinism, because God was supposed to have given mankind free will.
In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of this subject not only promises an exhilarating exercise in the human faculties of logic, it also offers an explanation into the practical, such as that of the existence of evil, which we live amidst every day. So with both of these elements in hand, I am going to take on the task of digging deeper into the divine attribute of omnipotence in hopes of revealing more of the glory of God, and simultaneously bringing greater humility to the human thinker. In order to gain a better understanding on the subject of divine omnipotence, I am going to analyze four aspects of it. First, I am going to build a working definition of what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent. Second, I am going to discuss the relationship between divine omnipotence and logic. Third, I am going to discuss the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s timelessness. Last, I am going to analyze God’s omnipotence in relation to the existence of evil in the world. Through the analysis of these four topics in relation to om...
If evil cannot be accounted for, then belief in the traditional Western concept of God is absurd” (Weisberger 166). At the end of the day, everyone can come up with all these numerous counter arguments and responses to the Problem of Evil but no one can be entirely responsible or accountable for the evil and suffering in a world where there is the existence of a “omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.” Does the argument of the Problem of Evil or even the counter arguments help the evil and suffering of innocent human beings across this world? No. However, the Problem of Evil is most successful in recognizing the evil and suffering of the world but not presenting a God that is said to be wholly good and perfect to be blamed and as a valid excuse for the deaths and evil wrongdoings of this world.