Argument on Mackie's Analysis on the Existence of God - Essay Example

Argument on Mackie's analysis on existence of God Introduction Since the start of western thought, philosophers and other scholars have battled with the issue of the existence of God, particularly in a world engulfed in evil. Numerous prominent philosophers have argued the absurdity of the coexistence of God and evil. Mackie is one such philosopher and his work "The Logical Problem of Evil" speaks clearly to his supposition of the nonexistence of God, primarily due to the presence of evil in the world (Aquinas 625). On the other hand, theists continue to defend the stance that God exists and can, in fact, coexist with evil. Mackie challenged theist notions by seeking to demonstrate the invalidity and lack of persuasiveness inherent in regard to the presence of God. The basis of Mackie’s argument is the provision of atheist criticisms towards theistic assertions regarding the issue of evil in the world (Geisler 65). However, throughout his argument, Mackie fails to unequivocally prove why the coexistence of God and evil is a contradiction of the presence of an omnipotent and all good God. Mackie’s depiction of God is that of a form of immortal monster that chooses to sit idly despite being aware of the terrible experiences of people in the world as a consequence of his inaction. As a result, Mackie attempts to prove this inconsistency by delving into his understanding of the disposition of an omnipotent being (Geisler 114). It is because of this that this paper will critically assess Mackie’s arguments using a theistic point of view, thereby showing that Mackie’s argument is incompatible with God’s overall purpose and his vision for the world. Although God frowns upon evil, he reveres free will, thus does not permit unnecessary suffering. The argument presented in this paper will defend a position that reconciles the presence of God with the presence of wickedness, thus highlighting the existence of God. Argument for the existence of God Mackie’s argument is quite contradictory since by appreciating the existence of evil, he unknowingly also acknowledges the existence of God in spite of such evil. Therefore, the existence of evil, instead of refuting God’s existence, achieves the exact opposite. Numerous responses against Mackie’s suppositions point to the existence of God in conjunction with evil. In fact, evil presupposes God’s existence since God provides a benchmark on which actions can be considered evil or good. Without the presence of God then evil would be nonexistent, hence it would be impossible to measure actions as either good or evil. This means that all actions, whether right or wrong can be deemed morally neutral since they are performed by individuals who are also morally neutral. Therefore, by allowing evil, in the short run, God could be attaining the eventual objective of destroying evil in the long term (Aquinas 626). In Mackie’s opinion, God’s first priority should be to deter evil even if it means infringing on people’s free will. Therefore, Mackie appears to presume that God’s actions are negligent since he does not stop evil. However, such an assumption is likely to imply that God is obligated to do something, but fails to do it. Being an almighty being, God is not compelled to do anything; for instance, stop evil since if he was, then this would imply that God is constrained by the desires of another higher being. Ironically, God’s omnipotence is evidenced by his capacity not to destroy evil in order to fulfill some form of obligation. As an omnipotent and benevolent being, God must have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the extent of evil in the world (Geisler 37). Despite the amount and types of evil present in the world, a balance also exists such that more good than evil characterizes the world. This makes humans look forward to the future and deem life as worth living. Argument against the existence of God While the argument against the existence of God encompasses a myriad of presumptions, perhaps the greatest one concerns the existence of evil, which is argued to contradict the existence of a good and omnipotent God. This argument centers on the assumption that it is unfeasible for an almighty God to create a world in a way he deems undesirable, for instance, following the existence of evil. In essence, there is no way that an entirely good God would intentionally create a world permeated by evil. Therefore, the primary assumption of this hypothesis is that since evil exists in the world, there is essentially no God, or even if he exists, he is not absolutely powerful or entirely good since he permits the existence of evil (Wright 108). If God exists and is perfectly good and omnipotent, and an omnipotent being can achieve anything while a perfectly good one always fights evil, therefore, God is nonexistent since evil exists in the world. This argument shows that while it is quite possible for God and evil to coexist, only if God is neither all good nor omnipotent (Aquinas 626). The rationale of this case is to make obvious the nonexistence of the theist God who is supposedly benevolent and omnipotent. Therefore, such a God would have no justifiable reasons to permit the kinds and extent of evil that exists. Even a mere mortal such as a good without the supposed omnipotence of God would endeavor to rid the world of evil; therefore, the fact that a being with the capacity to do so chooses not to, speaks to his nonexistence. Unsuccessfulness of argument against God’s existence While, at first glance, the argument against God’s existence can appear believable and rather persuasive, a closer look reveals its shortcomings (Wright 134). The greatest argument against the supposition that God does not exist due to the evil inherent in the world is the free will defense. Even atheists are agreeable to the fact that free will is existent. Therefore, due to the reality of a free spirit, it is quite unfeasible to think that a benevolent and omnipotent God can infringe on people’s free will by creating any form of world he deems desirable (Geisler 95). The fact that God is an omnipotent being does not necessarily mean that he can choose to do logically impossible things such as make a square round shape, or even compel somebody to freely select to do something. Therefore, it is highly possible that all worlds, which God considers feasible that contain creatures that are essentially free is bound to be a world characterized by both evil and sin. On the other hand, the presumption that if God is indeed an omnipotent and benevolent being then he would choose to have a world devoid of evil rather than a world characterized by evil. This assumption is inherently false. Even among humans, people allow for suffering and pain to exist in another person’s life so as to produce some form of greater good or since there is enough reason to permit such evil (Aquinas 627). For instance, at some point, parents acknowledge that they cannot protect their children from misconduct, hence there often comes a time when the parent is forced to inflict discipline so as to teach the children to become dependable adults. In the same way, in spite of being God benevolent, God permits evil and suffering into the world so as to test and build people or to attain some supplementary overriding goal. Therefore, the argument that God cannot exist or cannot be omnipotent and overly good if he permits evil is essentially invalid. Conclusion The opponent of any hypothesis incurs the burden of proof; hence as an objection to Mackie’s argument, this paper has effectively proven that God exists (Aquinas 627). From the assessment of Mackie’s argument presented in this paper, it is evident that Mackie’s arguments are primarily based on suppositions. Mackie’s argument essentially states that it is unfeasible for God and evil to coexist, and through this paper, it has been demonstrated that this scenario is not necessarily impossible. Atheists may argue that the argument inherent in this paper is unbelievable and logically unfeasible since it is illogical to think that God can coexist with evil. Mackie essentially argues that it is unfeasible for good and evil to coexist. This paper has challenged Mackie’s argument, demonstrating that God exists and can, in fact, coexist with evil. This paper has also managed to demonstrate that despite permitting wickedness to be present on earth, God is still an almighty and benevolent being. The paper has, thus demonstrated that if God was incapable of creating a world full of good and no evil, then this would essentially imply that he was not an all-powerful being. The thesis exemplified in this paper is important since it aims to put a stop, or play a part in quelling the long lasting deadlock between atheists and theists regarding the existence of God even in the midst of evil in the world (Aquinas 625). For Mackie, true good is appalled by the existence of evil and seeks to get rid of it at all costs. However, this paper has proven that good can coexist with evil since God as an omnipotent and benevolent being can permit good and evil to coexist so as to accomplish a greater objective. God is the ultimate omnipotent and benevolent being, thus is not required to do anything except whatever he chooses, which is clearly to comingle good and evil in order to achieve an ultimate objective. Works Cited Aquinas, T. “God and Human Freedom.” Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology. Ed. Davies, B. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 625-627. Print. Geisler, N. L. If God, Why Evil? A New Way to Think About the Question. Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2011. Print. Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Illinois: IVP Books, 2013. Print. Read More