given no premise or explanation. Speaking in terms of free will, what does it mean to necessarily be free or possess free will? Mackie takes this problem into consideration and moves to an important part of his work called the Paradox of Omnipotence. He says that The heart of the Free Will Defense is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. If it is possible to imagine a heaven in which people do not do evil, doesnt this show that there can be free will without anyones doing evil? From this fact, Mackie states that Gods omnipotence is no longer valid if men are really free. Mackie bases his essay on the belief that God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists (p.160). Natural evils (as described earlier in the paper) or disasters, for instance, cause great destruction, but there is nothing that man could have done to prevent them. Mackies statement that a good thing must always eliminate evil as much as possible is essential to his claim of the incoherence of the set of three propositions stated earlier. Mackie states that a good, omnipotent being would eliminate evil entirely, and it is impossible that a good omnipotent being exists while there is still evil. Why could not have God create the physical world (in which we live) as such? Moreover, evil occurs because God does not want to compromise this free will be preventing evil.
Heaven is supposed to be a perfect world. Think of two creators: One can only create good but not evil. Alas, I need to write a book. So if the blame does not fall on man, who can we hold accountable for such occurrences? I can see it coming down, if the future is the consequence of our past.
The Untold Story of the Most Evil Influences of our time, Response to Goodbye To Berlin,
Then He is malevolent. So what is Mackies premise that a good thing or being, in this case, must eliminate evil as far as it can? The problem simply stems from basic beliefs or assumptions pertaining to the attributes of God: God is perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent. "The Free Will Defense." Pojman, Louis. Mackie then goes on to say that Gods goodness is more like a third order good, or the will to maximize the second order good. He then elaborates that we observe and give names to qualities if they have real opposites (i.e. But if no one can choose otherwise, then no ability to choose really exists. If this is true, then what do you consider heaven? It would seem that this goes along with Mackies argument as the judge is eliminating the criminal, but Mackie does not account for the possible time the judge takes to eliminate the criminal, in which omnipotence, goodness, and evil exist together. The vicious circle begins anew but I don't think I can. When the shadows came alive again. He argues that there is a middle way between God creating automata who always act rightly, and free agents who sometimes do wrong.