Mackie's Argument For The Existence Of Evil
From a chemical standpoint, the only closed system in the universe is the universe itself. This means that unless God himself, reaches into our universe to intervene it its happenings, that since the conception of the universe, nothing new can be created from materials that were not already present in the system to begin with. This theory not only includes material things, but also conceptual things, such as good and evil. Good can be generally defined as a state of happiness the absence of underserved suffering. Evil can be defined in the same light as a privation of good or a state of underserved suffering. The general understandings of each individual concept tend to rely on an understanding of its opposing concept in order to explain itself,
…show more content…
Mackie discuss these issues that arise from the existence of evil in our world and how they expose the inconsistencies of God’s attributes with his creation, but Gottfried Leibniz counters those arguments with theodicy by explaining that the very existence of evil is necessary for the propagation of the greater …show more content…
The first standpoint is the evidential argument. Best introduced by Hume, it argues against the existence of God based on observations of the large amount of evil there is in the world relative to good. In Hume’s Argument from Evil, he writes, “all the goods in life united would not make a very happy man, but all the ills united would make a wretch indeed,” (pg. 234). The observations Hume makes of all the underserved suffering that occurs throughout the world paints a picture of evil so great that it appears to even over shadow the presence of good in the world. He argues that for the fact that evil is present in the world, God cannot exist or at least that God does not exist as the current omnipotent and omnibenevolent God that we generally perceive him to be. This is where the second standpoint of the problem of evil becomes clear. If evil exists, then at first impression, is God willing to prevent it but not able to? If so, then that would mean he was impotent. Alternatively, if he were able to but just wasn’t willing to, then that would make him malevolent. Finally, if he is both willing and able, then what is the purpose of all the evil we have in the universe (Epicurus, pg.
Mackie discuss these issues that arise from the existence of evil in our world and how they expose the inconsistencies of God’s attributes with his creation, but Gottfried Leibniz counters those arguments with theodicy by explaining that the very existence of evil is necessary for the propagation of the greater …show more content…
The first standpoint is the evidential argument. Best introduced by Hume, it argues against the existence of God based on observations of the large amount of evil there is in the world relative to good. In Hume’s Argument from Evil, he writes, “all the goods in life united would not make a very happy man, but all the ills united would make a wretch indeed,” (pg. 234). The observations Hume makes of all the underserved suffering that occurs throughout the world paints a picture of evil so great that it appears to even over shadow the presence of good in the world. He argues that for the fact that evil is present in the world, God cannot exist or at least that God does not exist as the current omnipotent and omnibenevolent God that we generally perceive him to be. This is where the second standpoint of the problem of evil becomes clear. If evil exists, then at first impression, is God willing to prevent it but not able to? If so, then that would mean he was impotent. Alternatively, if he were able to but just wasn’t willing to, then that would make him malevolent. Finally, if he is both willing and able, then what is the purpose of all the evil we have in the universe (Epicurus, pg.