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
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
a part of the text, “Evil and Omnipotence” by J.L Mackie. In this J.L says, But it does so only by qualifying some of the propositions that constitute the problem. First, it sets a limit to what God can do, saying that God cannot create good without simultaneously creating evil, and this means either that God is not omnipotent or that there are some limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. It may be replied that these limits are always presupposed, that omnipotence has never meant the power to do
J.L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" The philosopher J.L. Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called “Evil and Omnipotence,” in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other. #1. God is omnipotent. #2. God is morally perfect. #3. Evil exists. 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
there have been philosophers, theists, and theologians alike claiming that God is all-powerful. This is the divine attribute of God typically referred to as omnipotence. This attribute needs to be fleshed out, but, essentially, what this is saying is that God can do anything; however, is this true? There is an infamous paradox about God’s omnipotence that runs like this: If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift? In either case, God cannot do something. Either God cannot create
J.L Mackie’s IV. - Evil and Omnipotence presents us with the problem of believing in a God who is both Omnipotent as well as wholly good. The conflict presents that if God is both omnipotent and wholly good, then how can evil still exist? If being good means eliminating evil and omnipotent as having no limits as to what it can do, then being a good omnipotent God cannot exist in this world. The problem with evil is that evil cannot coexist if we have an omnipotent wholly good God. The author firstly
A CRITICAL ASSESSEMENT IN SUPPORT OF J. L. MACKIE’S ESSAY ‘EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE’ By A. Chokroborty-Hoque In the following paper, I will discuss ‘Evil and Omnipotence,’ an essay written by the Australian philosopher J.L. Mackie. First, I will summarize the core thesis of Mr. Mackie’s essay. I will then outline my reasons for endorsing his views by elaborating on some of the more salient points of his essay. Mackie begins by informing the reader of the theist’s continued belief in God. While philosophers
In his work, Evil and Omnipotence, J. L. Mackie attempts to point out the faults in the belief of an existence of God. His arguments are primarily centered around the idea of how evil existing within this world contradicts the theist belief that God is all powerful. Mackie argues off the basic premises surrounding the theist’s idea of God’s omnipotence, benevolence, as well as the evil existing. He also himself adds two additional premises one that good is opposed to evil and that omnipotent beings
mpossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God to exist in a universe where evil exists. The qualities in question are categorical, omnipotence, omniscience and being perfectly good, and the only way to account for the existence of evil is to limit in some way one of the categorical characteristics. What this does is change the quality of omnipotence to the lesser quality of extremely powerful. And in admitting any restrictions to any of the classical attributes of God is to admit that the
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
What is omnipotence? The literal meaning of the word “omnipotence” is the quality of having unlimited or very great power. People, who claim to have a religion, believe that God is omnipotent, that is, he is all powerful, and all knowing. However, the existence of evil in the world despite God being Omnipotent challenges this attribute of the God and raises question on his unlimited power. This contradiction gives rise to the argument which is described in the J.L Mackie’s article as problem of evil:
person physically and mentally who tries to uncover it. Nature also rewards those who respect it with its healing properties. Shelley uses romanticism and gothicism to characterize Nature as superior to man. Shelley first demonstrates nature’s omnipotence when she shows Nature take action upon those who defy it by administering punishment on the physical level. When Victor Frankenstein, son of aristocrats and creator of the monster comes to terms with the fact that his wife has died at the hands
later on. First of all, the definition of omnipotence that I provided, of course, might be rejected by theologians who object that “being able to do anything that one chooses to do,” for example, does not include “creating a world with free beings that never turn away from the good and never choose to do evil.” But the problem is that if God is omnipotent but there is one thing he cannot do, it follows that omnipotence is not one of God’s attributes or omnipotence in this case is a misnomer.
The Deductive Problem of Evil One of the major philosophical debates concerning God's existence involves the problem of evil. The problem has two basic formulations, one is deductive, the other inductive. The deductive form of the problem asks the following: Is the existence of evil logically compatible with a necessarily benevolent and necessarily omnipotent being? One of the philosophers who discusses the problem is Richard Gale. I will begin this essay by outlining the deductive
Reassemblage: Challenging the Relationship between Women and Visual Pleasure Visual pleasure, derived from images on film, is dominated by sexual imbalance. The pleasure in looking is split between active/male and passive/female. In her essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" Laura Mulvey asserts the fact that in mainstream films, women are simultaneously looked at and displayed. That is to say, the woman is both an object of desire and a spectacle for the male voyeuristic gaze. The male's
The problem of evil, as articulated by J.L. Mackie, concerns the consistency of the following claims typically accepted by theists: God is omniscient; God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists. If God is omniscient, then he should know about all evil that exists. If God is omnipotent, then it should be within his power to prevent all evil from occurring. Finally, if God is omnibenevolent, then it should be the case that he would not permit the evil that he is capable of preventing. The
over omnibenevolence because it is implied by his interaction with the world. An omnipotent being can be the unmoved mover and then remain entirely devoid of any feeling towards the creation, but a being that participates because of its lack of omnipotence will only do so because of its sympathy towards becoming.
2. Dorothee Solle made the claim that “God needs us”. What does she mean by this statement? What is the reasoning behind her understanding of God’s relationship with humanity? Karl Barth has a different point of view concerning God’s relationship with humanity. State your understanding of Barth’s position and indicate which perspective more closely approximates your position? Why? Dorothee Solle and Karl Barth hold different ideas about God’s power that allow Solle to claim “God needs us” and Barth
The Problem of Evil The simultaneous presence of evil and God has been an ongoing debate for a long time. Evil is defined as being morally wrong and by definition, God is the supreme; he is morally perfect and has the power to control everything and everyone. He should then be able to prevent evil from existing or get rid of the evil that does exist, but this is not the case. The question that arises, is if there is a God and he is morally perfect, why does God allow for evil in the world if? The
A Supremely Perfect Being is one who is Omnipotent, Transcendent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omni benevolent. However, these attributes in cohere with each other for many reasons, such as Omniscience and Omnipotence. The meaning of Incoherency is when there is a lack of logical organisation in the way something is thought out or expressed that makes it difficult to understand, for example it is difficult to understand a bachelor to be a married man. To say a Supremely Perfect Being is Omnipotent