J.L. Mackie's Evil and Omnipotence

JL Mackie's "evil and omnipotent" philosopher JL Mackie wrote an article about a very compelling evil called "evil and omnipotent" and that one of the following premises must be fake I tried to prove. To keep them consistent with each other. # 1 God is omnipotent. # 2 God is morally perfect. # 3. Evil exists. The problem of evil is the interpretation of transcendental argument, its aim is to prove the absence of God. In addition to Mackie's three main premises, he also introduced several "quasi-logic" rules that provide further evidence of his claim.

The logical argument makes the theory impossible because the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of omnipotent, omnipotent God. J. L. Mackie argues from this viewpoint and claims that the nature of Theists is incompatible with the existence of evil. In his essay "Evil and Almighty", McGee defines evil as all kinds of pain and suffering, and definitions of evil universally accepted by philosophers. Then he proposed the following premise:

JL Mackie's "evil and omnipotent" philosopher JL Mackie wrote an article about a very compelling evil called "evil and omnipotent" and that one of the following premises must be fake I tried to prove. To keep them consistent with each other. # 1 God is omnipotent. # 2 God is morally perfect. # 3. Evil exists. The problem of evil is the interpretation of transcendental argument, its aim is to prove the absence of God. In addition to Mackie's three main premises, he also introduced several "quasi-logic" rules that provide further evidence of his claim.

In "Evil and Almighty", J. McKee attacks the view of the existence of God by showing the weakness of the theologian's possible solutions to the evil problem. When he published a free will argument, his most influential argument involved the relationship between omnipotent paradox and the totipotency and kindness of God. One possible solution to the problem of evil is that there is no need for good or good without evil. There are two problems with this solution. Because it disputes God's versatility and kindness. Then God should not think that there is no totipotency, or at least his totipotency is not limited, as God can not do good without evil. Because God restricts his power, he does not create what he binds. The second solution criticized by Mackie is that it is necessary to insist that evil is a means to get good.