If God could do this, but does not, and if he is wholly good, the only explanation could be that even a wrong free act of will is not really evil, that its freedom is a value which outweighs its wrongness, so that there would be a loss of value if God took away the wrongness and the freedom together.
Some examples are as follows. Mackie implies that if a theist made an adjustment which changed one of the definitions found in the problem of evil then this would resolve the problem. Moreover, it is simply wrong for Mackie, an atheist, to assume that all theological positions committed to God as omnipotent hold his views on the meaning and nature of evil.
This solution of the problem  of evil cannot, therefore, be consistently adopted along with the view that logic is itself created by God. This view clearly shows that good will win over evil. Again, neither the affirmative nor the negative answer is really satisfactory.
So, asking why we are on Earth is as pointless. But unless evil is merely the privation of good, they are not logical opposites, and some farther argument would be needed to show that they are counterparts in the same way as genuine  logical opposites.
Does it make sense, then, to call college evil because it makes a person struggle and work hard.
The problem does not arise only for theists, but I shall discuss it in the form in which it presents itself for ordinary theism.
I propose to examine some of these so-called solutions, and to exhibit their fallacies in detail. These fallacious solutions often turn upon some equivocation with the words 'good' and 'evil', or upon some vagueness about the way in which good and evil are opposed to one another, or about how much is meant by 'omnipotence'.
The converse is also true. But theists are not usually willing to say, in all contexts, that all the evil that occurs is a minute and necessary dose.
Since they were able to cope with these conundrums, they were successful and happy. And, still more, how can it be the most important good. For those who still hold true to the three ideas, Mackie shows that the reasoning behind their beliefs is flawed in that it indirectly shows that one of the three facets are false.
There are, then, quite a number of adequate solutions of the problem of evil, and some of these have been adopted, or almost adopted, by various thinkers.
Those who succeed by having hope, putting in good effort, and working to achieve humane goals will be rewarded in the afterlife and probably in this world as well. Exactly how it emerges does not matter: However, this view also brings about other questions that should be discussed.
Suffering is a part of the test, and those who have hope and fight for happiness, God promises them happiness. Or, what is practically equivalent to this, can an omnipotent being make rules which then bind himself.
This is even true for those who are victims of evil. Freedom, that is to say, is now treated as a third order good, and as being more valuable than second order goods such as sympathy and heroism would be if they were deterministically produced, and it is being assumed that second order evils, such as cruelty, are logically necessary accompaniments of freedom, just as pain is a logically necessary pre-condition of sympathy.
But in this sense great and small are not logically necessary counterparts: There is still doubt of the correctness of the metaphysical principle that a quality must have a real opposite: This combination evades my third criticism of the preceding solution.
These points are obvious; I mention them only because they are sometimes ignored by theologians, who sometimes parry a statement of the problem with such remarks as "Well, can you solve the problem yourself.
Mackie, in his essay Evil and Omnipotencetries to prove that believing in a mighty and all good god is irrational. In its simplest form the problem is this: In Hume's rather half-hearted presentation of the problem of evil, the evils that he stresses are pain and disease, and those who reply to him argue that the existence of pain and disease makes possible the existence of sympathy, benevolence, heroism, and the gradually successful struggle of doctors and reformers to overcome these evils.
As we shall see, theistic systems incorporate different notions of evil. Those who fail and resort to evil by losing hope of success will be punished in the hereafter and maybe even in this world.
Everything in the universe could have been red. And it is a logical problem, the problem of clarifying and reconciling a number of beliefs:. Analysis Of J L Mackie S Evil And Omnipotence.
In J.L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” he argues against the existence of douglasishere.com uses the standpoint that God cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and evil can still exist.
Omnipotent means all-powerful and that God is capable of anything. Analysis of J.L. Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence The question of the existence of God has been brought up endlessly time and time again throughout the history of the world.
Countless discussions take place daily by people of all religious beliefs in regards to the existence of a God and if a God did exist, then why is there so much evil in the. Analysis Of J.L.
Mackie's, Evil And Omnipotence This essay Analysis Of J.L. Mackie's, Evil And Omnipotence is available for you on Essayscom! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essayscom - full papers database.4/4(1).
2. Second Response and Mackie's Reply: Response: The existence of evil is the only possible way to get certain important goods. Mackie’s reply: unless it’s logically impossible for god to get these goods without evil, it follows that god isn’t omnipotent.
Analysis of J.L. Mackie's, Evil and Omnipotence The question of the existence of God has been brought up endlessly time and time again throughout the history of the world.
Countless discussions take place daily by people of all religious beliefs in regards to the existence of a God and if a God did exist, then why is there so much evil in the. Evil and Omnipotence (J.
L. Mackie) 2 (Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man, Epistle i, line ) It is hard to deny the existence of evil, despite what Pope says (and however elegantly he says it.) Various Fallacious Solutions 1. “Good cannot exist without evil” or “Evil is a necessary condition as a counterpart to good”.Analysis of j l mackie s evil and omnipotence