DOES THE PROBLEM OF EVIL SHOW THAT GOD
DOESN’T EXSIST?
INTRO: Evil leads us to question God’s existence + Outline moral and natural evils
Mackie fails to diminish God through the existence of moral evil because
Plantinga argues moral evil is necessary for us to have free will. However,
Plantinga eventually fails in justifying natural evil due to the evidential
problem, which diminished God.
MACKIE logical problem
Concept of good couldn’t exist without evil
Critiques = minor
➢ With only red, we would have no concept of red. We need other colours (evil) to understand
red (good).
MACKIE: Everything would still be good
➢ We may have no concept of red (good). But, it would still be true that everything was good.
Wouldn’t be a better world (need rst order evils)
➢ We only get second order goods (which help us get rst order goods) through rst order
evils. E.g. we can only be courageous with fear.
Critiques = Defeating for
Why second order evils?
➢ God could create a world in which everyone freely chooses to act in a way that’s good =
logically possible world with free will, without second order evils. Why would an omnipotent
and omniscient God allow them to exist.
Mackie
PLANTINGA: second orders = logically possible
➢ Logically possible God would allow second order evils for the greater good, as signi cant
free will outweighs the negative of people using that signi cant free will to commit second
order evils. This is because free will = inherently good.
Defeating issue for general
Justi es Moral evil but not natural evils
PLANTINGA: Natural evil is a form of moral evil
existence of God
➢ If ‘natural’ evil is due to non-human actors e.g. Satan, fallen angels, demons. This would
make it a form of moral evil and therefore explained by free will.
Logically possible but, what physical evidence?
➢ Free will can show God = not logically inconsistent with Evil. However, It fails to overcome
the Evidential Problem of Evil, as these beings are unperceived with little evidence of their
existence and yet we’re using them to justify evil, something we have a large amount of
evidence of.
The Evidential problem is concerned with evidence, of which there is an imbalance as there’s
more evidence for abundant evil than for these unperceived non-human actors. Therefore, as this
is the only explanation for natural evil it cannot succeed in explaining it and thus diminishing God.
fi fi fi fi fi fi
DOESN’T EXSIST?
INTRO: Evil leads us to question God’s existence + Outline moral and natural evils
Mackie fails to diminish God through the existence of moral evil because
Plantinga argues moral evil is necessary for us to have free will. However,
Plantinga eventually fails in justifying natural evil due to the evidential
problem, which diminished God.
MACKIE logical problem
Concept of good couldn’t exist without evil
Critiques = minor
➢ With only red, we would have no concept of red. We need other colours (evil) to understand
red (good).
MACKIE: Everything would still be good
➢ We may have no concept of red (good). But, it would still be true that everything was good.
Wouldn’t be a better world (need rst order evils)
➢ We only get second order goods (which help us get rst order goods) through rst order
evils. E.g. we can only be courageous with fear.
Critiques = Defeating for
Why second order evils?
➢ God could create a world in which everyone freely chooses to act in a way that’s good =
logically possible world with free will, without second order evils. Why would an omnipotent
and omniscient God allow them to exist.
Mackie
PLANTINGA: second orders = logically possible
➢ Logically possible God would allow second order evils for the greater good, as signi cant
free will outweighs the negative of people using that signi cant free will to commit second
order evils. This is because free will = inherently good.
Defeating issue for general
Justi es Moral evil but not natural evils
PLANTINGA: Natural evil is a form of moral evil
existence of God
➢ If ‘natural’ evil is due to non-human actors e.g. Satan, fallen angels, demons. This would
make it a form of moral evil and therefore explained by free will.
Logically possible but, what physical evidence?
➢ Free will can show God = not logically inconsistent with Evil. However, It fails to overcome
the Evidential Problem of Evil, as these beings are unperceived with little evidence of their
existence and yet we’re using them to justify evil, something we have a large amount of
evidence of.
The Evidential problem is concerned with evidence, of which there is an imbalance as there’s
more evidence for abundant evil than for these unperceived non-human actors. Therefore, as this
is the only explanation for natural evil it cannot succeed in explaining it and thus diminishing God.
fi fi fi fi fi fi
