Philosophy: Problem of Evil Part 1

Main ideas and concepts

• The talk explains two versions of the philosophical problem of evil:

  • Logical (deductive) problem of evil (“square circle objection”): argues that holding belief in God and belief in evil leads to a contradiction (like the idea of a “square circle”).
  • Evidential problem of evil (“unicorn objection”): not a contradiction, but it makes it seem unlikely that God exists given the facts about evil.

• The session focuses specifically on the logical problem of evil and how theists (philosophers who believe in God) respond to it.

The logical problem of evil (Mackie’s argument) — structure and steps

• The speaker says he is following a famous paper by John Mackie and presents the argument as a sequence of premises meant to derive a contradiction.

Premises

1. God exists and is wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient.
2. Evil exists.
3. No limits: an omnipotent/omniscient being has unrestricted power/capacity to do what it can do (as expressed in the talk: “no limits to what an omnipotent, omniscient being can do”).
4. Goodness entails preventing evil: “A good being always eliminates or prevents evil as far as it can.”

Derived steps (as described in the subtitles)

• Step 5: If God can eliminate all evil and is omnipotent (from premise 1 + premise 3), then God can eliminate/prevent all evil that exists.
• Step 6: If God is wholly good (from premise 1 + premise 4), then God will eliminate/prevent all evil that he can eliminate (which, given Step 5, amounts to all evil).
• Conclusion from steps 5–6: God eliminates/prevents all evil, which implies:
  • Step 8: There is no evil.

Final contradiction (Step 9 and beyond)

• Premise 2 states evil exists, but Step 8 concludes there is no evil.
• This yields the explicit contradiction:

  “There is evil and there is no evil.”

What’s wrong, according to different positions

• The speaker argues that since the argument is supposed to be valid but results in a contradiction, at least one premise must be rejected.

Atheists / John Mackie’s view (as presented)

• The main rejection is premise 1: it’s not true that God exists as characterized (wholly good, omnipotent, omniscient).

Theists’ general strategy (as presented)

• They don’t reject premise 1 or premise 2:
  • it’s “pretty obvious” evil exists (so premise 2 is retained),
  • and they reject the idea that the contradiction comes directly from the initial God-and-evil setup.
• Instead, they scrutinize premise 3 and premise 4 to identify where the contradiction is forced.

Sources / speakers featured (at end)

• Greg Ganssle (speaker)
• John Mackie (credited as the source whose argument/paper is being followed)