There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false - J.L. Mackie
All three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must and cannot consistently adhere to all three - J.L. Mackie
A common solution to the Logical Problem of Evil is that many kinds of evil are not the result of God’s actions, but of the free actions of human beings. This is the "Freewill Defence" proposed by Alvin Plantinga.
Mackie asks how can this count as a solution to the problem of evil, given that God created the freewilled creatures? The theist's reply is that it is better that God made us with freewill and not as robots or automata who are kind or brave in a machine-like way. An all-powerful, good God would make a world in which human beings have freewill and can choose kindness over cruelty. |
If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion - J.L. Mackie
the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right - J.L. Mackie
[God's] failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good - J.L. Mackie
What value or merit would there be in free choices if these were random actions which were not determined by the nature of the agent? - J.L. Mackie
can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? - J.L. Mackie A paradox is a contradictory idea - something that seems to be true and false at the same time. The Paradox of Omnipotence is whether an omnipotent being (God) could create something that he cannot control.
God ends up being non-omnipotent whichever answer you choose. If God creates freewilled creatures and promises to respect their choices, then he stops being omnipotent because there's stuff he can't do. If he goes back on his promise, he was never omnipotent in the first place, because his creatures no longer have their freewill.
|
The Paradox of Omnipotence is sometimes explored (in a more simplistic way) by asking if God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
|
Mackie defines two possible types of omnipotence; first-order omnipotence being unlimited power to act, second-order omnipotence being unlimited power to determine what powers other things should have. Mackie argues that if a God had second order omnipotence he could create something which had the power to act independently of his own power, therefore he would not have first-order omnipotence.
|
if God and his actions are not in time, can omnipotence, or power of any sort, be meaningfully ascribed to him? - J.L. Mackie
YES
Mackie has stated the Logical Problem of Evil in very lucid terms. He has drawn attention to the fact that all the "solutions" to the Problem involve surrendering one of the definitions of God (his omnipotence or his goodness). Even the Freewill Defence fails because an omnipotent God should be able to create free creatures who do not choose evil.
Freewill itself is incoherent, because it must either mean random behaviour (which is not determined in advance but cannot be chosen) or else it means actions proceeding from character (in which case God is ultimately responsible for creating such characters). In any event, the idea that God creates something he cannot predict or control only shows that omnipotence is also an incoherent idea.
|
NO
Mackie is mistaken when he claims that freewill is compatible with God determining how people will act. Freewill and determinism are incompatible. Free will is the "ability to do other than what one in fact does" but if our actions are determined, then freewill becomes contradictory. Therefore it's impossible for God to determine how free creatures act.
God might be aware all human behaviour without determining it and making it unfree if God exists outside of time - in which case our 'future' is God's present. This raises questions about what it means for an eternal being to act or choose, but if fits in with the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) and the idea of God as a Necessary Being, which are important in other areas like the Design, Cosmological and Ontological Arguments.
|