Summary Of Evil And Omnipotence By J. L. Mackie

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 have unlimited power. Mackie argues that if God is omnipotent than he should have been able to create humans free and unerring, eliminating evil from the world. I believe that this can be argued otherwise due to the fact that God could indeed be omnipotent while still allowing evil to exist. I will argue that alternative arguments given by the theist, that God can have humans who are free and erring while

still being omnipotent can be possible.

I will do this by pointing out flaws in Mackie’s argument and analyzing the question of what true free will means in the sense of choosing right or wrong.

Arguments that counter Mackie’s critique have been proposed by many philosophers including one named Plantinga, who claimed that if God had created humans who would always go right, they would not be truly free. Additionally to that he argued that if God truly made humans free choosing to go right would be dependent on the human beings themselves, which in turn would allow them to sin (CITE). Based on this he concluded, “God's omnipotence and perfect goodness is compatible with the existence of evil” (Why are there sinners). Another philosopher by the name of J. Hick also criticizes this claim by Mackie by saying “there is a contradiction in saying that God is the cause of our acting as we do and that we are free beings specifically in relation to God.” (CITE) By

this J. Hick meant if all of our actions as well as thoughts were already pre decided than even if we felt free, we would not be free to God. He goes on to explain that “such 'freedom' would be comparable to that of patients acting out a series of posthypnotic suggestions: they appear to themselves to be free, but their volitions have actually been predetermined by the will of the hypnotist” (Why are there sinners). Hick’s analogy attempts to show that if humans have no choice but to be without sin then they are not truly free. Agustine also plays off of this theory by using the biblical story of Adam and Eve as his base. Agustine explains that Adam and Eve both had freedom in the beginning when first created by God to be able to sin or not to sin. Therefore, both Adam and Eve had free will yet could potentially not sin and potentially not sin. Even though Mackie’s third choice can seem logical, that if God was truly all powerful he could ensure a perfect world it does not correlate with the idea of free will. By going against the idea of free will than Mackie’s claim can be considered at fault.

In conclusion, many philosophers have brought up different perspectives that all correlate with the idea of free will and the difference between choice of sinning. Mackie tries to simplify the theistic argument by suggesting that if God were truly omnipotent than he would create humans perfect while free. However, it can be seen that God could be an omnipotent power and still allow evil to exist due to the fact that he knows evil has to be a true sacrifice of human freedom.