In this paper I will write about the problem of evil as perceived by the philosophers John L. Mackie and William Rowe. Both versions of the problem of evil conclude that there exists no God who has the properties of being omnipotent and benevolent because of the evil that exists in the world. Despite their promising arguments and the further disagreements of theists, this paper will support the success of Rowe’s argument due to his more supportive logical reasoning.
Many philosophers debate the existence of God in the sense of evidence, such as theistic proofs. These theistic proofs are used to both support God’s existence and his nonexistence. However, John L. Mackie proposes another view in the debate of a divine being’s existence. Rather than using different theistic proofs to support that God does not exist, Mackie focuses on theological doctrine’s inconsistency with one another. The theological doctrine includes the following propositions: (1) evil exists, (2) God is omnipotent, and (3) God is wholly good. Mackie believes that these three propositions are inconsistent, meaning that all three cannot exist and be true all at the same time. He supports this by talking about “additional premises,” which prove that all three propositions are inconsistent with each other.…show more content… He does not believe that the additional premises are necessarily true. For example, Plantinga tries to disprove the additional premise that claims a wholly good thing [always] eliminates evil as far as it can. On page 232, Plantinga states:
“Suppose you know that Paul is marooned… and you also know another friend is similarly marooned fifty miles in the opposite direction. Suppose, furthermore, that while you can rescue one or the other, you simply cannot rescue both… But you can’t eliminate both; and you do not forfeit your claim to be a good person by eliminating only one—it wasn’t within your power to do
