God Logic Evil
A Discussion on Omnipotence as it relates to God, Logic and Evil
J.L. Mackie's thesis in the article “Evil and Omnipotence”', is that the traditional Judeo-Christian theological belief in an omnipotent and omni benevolent God is illogical given the presence of evil in the world. Mackie introduces the logical inconsistency with the following three premises: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. To illustrate how omnipotence and evil are incompatible, Mackie takes his position one-step further and elaborates his premises to argue that good always eliminates evil; an omnipotent being has no limits; therefore, an omnipotent and omni benevolent God would eliminate evil in its entirety.
In this paper, I will dispute Mackie's definition of omnipotence as “there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do” (201). I will argue that omnipotence does not involve God being able to do what is logically impossible. Mackie might counter, "then if he can't do everything, he's not omnipotent." I would reply that is a misunderstanding of meaning. As Alvin Plantinga, wrote in "The Free Will Defense”: "What the theist typically means when he says that God is omnipotent is not that there are no limits to God's power, but at most that there are no nonlogical limits to what He can do..." Rather, omnipotence means capable of doing whatever can be done.
Mackie wants a “rational” argument against the existence of God based on the presence of evil. His argument is a direct challenge to the theologian to rationally defend their beliefs in a logically consistent manner. In doing so, however, Mackie accuses the theologian of equivocation regarding the term “omnipotence.” Mackie argues, most theologians who deny or limit God's omnipotence will only attempt to reassert the premise later.
According to Mackie, God is omnipotent or he isn't. Mackie asserts that if there are levels of omnipotence, it is only an “adequate solution” to the problem of evil. I am not sure, however, how asserting that there are some limits to what an omnipotent being can do contradicts the theist's definition of omnipotence. According to the theologian Thomas C. Oden, "Omnipotence may be defined as the perfect ability of God to do all things that are consistent with the divine character.” Oden cites Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and other theologians in support of this being the historic, orthodox conception of omnipotence.
As a consequence of the disparity between the theologian's definition of omnipotence and Mackie's definition, we are left with a false dilemma. Mackie concludes that if God is bound by laws of logical necessity and laws of causal necessity, he is not omnipotent. For example, the argument that evil cannot exist without good, which is based on the idea that good and evil exist as counterparts is a fallacious solution because it sets a qualifier on the term omnipotence by subjecting God to laws of logical necessity. To illustrate, Mackie uses the analogy that it is not a logical necessity that we have non-red in order to have red. We could have a world in which everything was red, but we would not notice the redness because we only give names to qualities with real opposites. Correspondingly, his conclusion is that an omnipotent God could have made the world completely good, but we would not notice the goodness.
I argue, however, as previously stated, that omnipotence does not involve God being able to do what is logically impossible. Mackie counters that creating good without evil is not a logically impossible act. I assert that it is a logical impossibility for good to exist without evil in the same manner that a person can only experience forgiveness if one has done something wrong. Similarly, Mackie concedes that first order evil (pain) gives rise to “second order good” (benevolence). However, Mackie objects to the argument that evil is a necessary as a means to good because it subjects God to laws of causal necessity, thereby negating his omnipotence. In order to keep the meaning of omnipotence as “there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do”, Mackie would demand a system that compromises cause and effect.
Accordingly, if we accept that the law of non-contradiction applies to God, we can argue that it is impossible for God to both create humans with free-will and at the same time control their freedom. This constraint on God does not limit his omnipotence because it was never possible. It is not possible for God to do something that he cannot do. Correspondingly, can God "not exist" as a display of his omnipotence? Such limits of logical possibility on God means, in effect, accepting that rationality is a constraint on God.
A possible objection to this argument might be that “logic" is a human way of understanding and that God's nature is beyond our human imagination and intellect. Further, that logic is an attribute of how human minds evaluate what they perceive so our assumption that logical categories apply to God may itself be suspect - why would we assume that God as an infinite being will be limited by finite reason?
I would respond that if God is not bound by logical consistency, then we would have no quantifiable way of understanding God as a rational being or attempt to understand him using reason and logic.
Further, it is my position that if we accept Mackie's position that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do then God would not be subject to the laws of logic. If God is not bound by the laws of logic, he can do anything he wishes, including allowing thousands of innocents to suffer - although according to our perception that is the definition of evil. But there would be no reason to assume that it was evil according to God because we have left the realm of reason. Martin Luther wrote that:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has". "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
I would reply that if we leave the realm of reason, as a consequence we would have no way of knowing the truth. We could no longer attribute the character of God as an all-powerful and wholly good being because there would be no reason to think that this is true. I conclude that reason is not a limit on omnipotence.
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
