Question Database: God and Religion
The Problem of Evil
Mackie’s argument:
1. If God exists, God is omnipotent.
2. If God exists, God is omniscient.
3. If God exists, God is perfectly good.
4. A perfectly good being eliminates evil as far as it can.
5. There are no limits to what an omnipotent and omniscient being can do.
6. Evil exists.
C. (Hence) God does not exist.
Is this argument valid or not?
A. The argument is valid. If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
B. The argument is valid since premises 1-5 are all true by definition and premise 6 is undeniable.
C. The argument is invalid, since there are logical limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
D. The argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow unless it is assumed that evil is the opposite of good.
Answer: A
Topic:
Problem of evil, Mackie
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Which of the following statements concerning this argument are correct?
A. Premise 1 is questionable because God cannot do anything logically impossible.
B. Premise 4 is questionable: someone can be a good person even though they fail to eliminate all the evil there is in the world.
C. Premise 3 is questionable: perhaps even a perfectly good being might allow some evil to come about, especially if it served some greater good.
D. All of the above.
Answer: B
Topic:
Problem of evil, Mackie
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Note A and C are wrong because they misidentify the premise the objection is relevant to. A is a good criticism of premise 5, while C is a good criticism of premise 4. The first three premises are true by the definition of God we are operating with, although it is a matter of debate precisely what the terms ‘omnipotent’, ‘perfectly good’ etc mean exactly. Premises 4 and 5 are in effect providing one way of interpreting these terms.
The argument reformulated
Here is one way the argument could be reformulated to avoid some of the problems with Mackie’s version:
1. If God exists, God is omnipotent.
2. If God exists, God is omniscient.
3. If God exists, God is perfectly good.
4. A perfectly good being will make the best world that it can.
5. An omnipotent and omniscient being can make any world that it wishes to make.
6. There is no evil in the best of all possible worlds.
7. Evil exists.
C. (Hence) God does not exist.
Is this version of the argument valid?
A. The argument is valid. If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
B. The argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow unless it is assumed that If God exists, then there is no evil in the world.
C. The argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow unless it is assumed that if God exists, then God made the world.
D. The argument is invalid. The conclusion does not follow unless it is assumed that this is the best of all worlds.
Answer: C
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Here is the argument again, with the missing premise (4) included:
1. If God exists, God is omnipotent.
2. If God exists, God is omniscient.
3. If God exists, God is perfectly good.
4. If God exists, then God made the world.
5. A perfectly good being will make the best world that it can.
6. An omnipotent and omniscient being can make any world that it wishes to make.
7. There is no evil in the best of all possible worlds.
8. Evil exists.
C. (Hence) God does not exist.
Consider the following objection to this argument and say which of the premises (if any) it attempts to undermine:
Good cannot exist without evil.
A. Premise 3.
B. Premise 5.
C. Premise 7.
D. The claim is not relevant to any of the premises.
Answer: C
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following objection to this argument and say which of the premises (if any) it attempts to undermine:
We could not recognize goodness if there was no evil in the world to contrast it to.
A. Premise 3.
B. Premise 5.
C. Premise 7.
D. The claim is not relevant to any of the premises
Answer: D
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following objection to this argument and say which of the premises (if any) it attempts to undermine:
God gave people free-will which allows them to do evil. But a world with people who can make free choices is better than a world without free-will.
A. Premise 5.
B. Premise 6.
C. Premise 7.
D. The claim is not relevant to any of the premises.
Answer: C
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following objection to this argument and say which of the premises (if any) it attempts to undermine:
Evil is really an illusion – what appears evil to us may really be good, because it is part of God’s plan for us.
A. Premise 5.
B. Premise 7.
C. Premise 8.
D. The claim is not relevant to any of the premises.
Answer: C
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Consider the following objection to this argument and say which of the premises (if any) it attempts to undermine:
There is no such thing as the best of all worlds; only a never ending sequence of better and better worlds.
A. Premise 5.
B. Premise 7.
C. Premise 8.
D. The claim is not relevant to any of the premises.
Answer: A
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Second-order goods
Which of the following might count as second-order goods?
I. Guilt at the suffering you have caused.
II. Courage in the face of adversity.
III. Compassion for the victims of terrible crimes and natural disasters.
IV. Anger at people who allow the existence of injustices which they could prevent.
A. I, II, III and IV
B. I, II and III
C. III only
D. II and III
Answer: D
Topic:
Problem of evil, second-order goods
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
1. If God exists, God is omnipotent.
2. If God exists, God is omniscient.
3. If God exists, God is perfectly good.
4. If God exists, then God made the world.
5. A perfectly good being will make the best world that it can.
6. An omnipotent and omniscient being can make any world that it wishes to make.
7. There is no evil in the best of all possible worlds.
8. Evil exists.
C. (Hence) God does not exist.
Claim: Second-order goods would be impossible without first-order evils.
Which premise of the argument does this claim attempt to undermine?
A. Premise 5.
B. Premise 6.
C. Premise 7.
D. Premise 8.
Answer: C
Topic:
Problem of evil
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
The free-will defence
True or False: No determinist believes that we ever act freely.
A. True
B. False
Answer: B
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, determinism, compatibilism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
True or False: If incompatibilism and determinism are both true, then we are not free.
A. True
B. False
Answer: A
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, determinism, compatibilism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Which of the following arguments would be valid according to the libertarian concept of freedom?
A. The world is deterministic, so there is no freedom.
B. Freedom exists, therefore the universe is not deterministic.
C. Freedom does not exist, therefore the universe is deterministic.
D. None of the above.
Answer: A and B
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, determinism, compatibilism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
Which of the following arguments would be valid according to the compatibilist concept of freedom?
A. The world is deterministic, therefore there is no freedom.
B. Freedom exists, therefore the world is not deterministic.
C. There is no such thing as freedom, therefore the world is deterministic.
D. None of the above.
Answer: D
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, determinism, compatibilism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
According to the free-will defence, God cannot create a world in which it is pre-determined that everyone always freely choose the good. So there is something God cannot do. Doesn’t this mean that God is not omnipotent after all?
A. Yes, the free-will defence is inconsistent with the claim that God is omnipotent.
B. No, the free-will defence does not need to deny God’s omnipotence.
Answer: B
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, omnipotence
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
The idea of the free-will defence is that it is logically impossible for God to create a world in which it is pre-determined that everyone always freely choose the good. But this does not contradict God’s omnipotence, if that is taken to imply that God can do anything that it is logically possible for God to do.
Can an omnipotent being make a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? If not, then there is something that it cannot do, but that other beings can do. However, if so, then, if it makes the stone, there is something that it cannot do. So, either way, there is something that an omnipotent being cannot do—whence it follows that the very idea of an omnipotent being is incoherent.
Which of the following are valid objections to this argument?
A. An omnipotent being could make a stone so heavy that it could not lift it. Then it could change itself so that it could lift it.
B. An omnipotent being might have the power to give up its omnipotence.
C. An omnipotent being can only do what it is logically possible for it to do. But it is logically impossible for a being to create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it.
D. None of the above.
Answer: B
Topic:
Problem of evil, free will, omnipotence
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
C is close, but not quite right: it is logically impossible to make a stone so heavy that an OMNIPOTENT being cannot lift it.