Independent Reading-Evil and Omnipotence-Melissa Faller

J.L. Mackie argues in Evil and Omnipotence that “good cannot exist without evil” (227). He supports this argument with the view that God therefore would not be omnipotent, and if good were a counterpart of evil it would completely eliminate as much as it were able too. The second fallacy Mackie states is, “Evil is necessary as a means to good” (228). He supports this argument with the fact that one cannot have “a certain end without a certain means” (228). He implies that this means that God would not be able to be omnipresent, because he would be constrained by his own causal laws. The third fallacy he refers to is “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be in there were no evil” (229). In this argument he disputes that if God were wholly and omnipotent he would get rid of the certain type of evil that demotes good. He also mentions that if the world were better with evil in it there would be an evil power equal to the goodness of God. Mackie’s fourth and final fallacy is “Evil is due to human freewill” (230). Mackie argues this fallacy that if God made men’s characteristics he therefore determined how men are going to act. If he determines how men are going to act then he does not give them freewill. If mans characteristics determine whether men are going to proceed with evil or good, than man does not really have free will. He also states that if in fact man does have free will than God is not omnipresent. In conclusion, Mackie believes that it is not possible for God to be omnipresent and wholly, at the same time as evil being present in the world.
However, Mackie does mention a few counter arguments that he does not fully explain in order to make a convincing argument. Some of these counter arguments consist of God and his actions are not in time, and that “evil opposed to good, does not exist” (226). The lack of explanation of these counter arguments weakens his essay, because if indeed these things are true then an omnipresent, wholly God, can exist with evil. Another problem with Mackie’s essay is that in his third fallacy he mentions that there would have to be an evil power. Mackie fails to compare and contrast the devil and hell in his essay. Kwame Gyekye, the author of The Free-Will Explanation, makes a good point when he mentions that the deities could be responsible for evil, not God. Mackie does not go into the fact that God could have no part in evil, but instead he assumes God is to blame. Gyekye makes another good point that Mackie failed to mention. If God created the best world possible, there is no inconsistency between an omnipresent wholly God, and an evil world. For if the world is better with freewill and evil than it is with no free will, then can we not assume that evil is better then a world with only good? I feel that Mackie’s essay is not persuasive, because there is not enough evidence to conclude that the present world is not what God intended. For if an omnipresent God did not create evil and good, there would be no freewill, and there would be no need for all powerful God.