But he notes that this need not convince someone that there is no reason for believing in God: Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another Mackie states the problem as follows: There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false.
Life[ edit ] Mackie was born 25 August in KillaraSydney. Mackie received the Wentworth Travelling Fellowship to study Greats at Oriel College, Oxfordwhere he graduated with a first in Inhe moved to the United Kingdom, becoming the inaugural holder of the chair of philosophy in the University of Yorka position he held until when he was instead elected a fellow of University College, Oxfordwhere he served as praelector.
Inventing Right and Wrongp. I am nowhere mainly concerned to refute any individual writer.
I believe that all those to whom I have referred, even those with whom I disagree most strongly, have contributed significantly to our understanding of ethics: Mackie married Joan Meredith in She lectured in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham from toand was appointed Head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Nottingham in In meta-ethics, he took a position called moral scepticismarguing against the objective existence of right and wrong as intrinsically normative entities on fundamental grounds as unsure about what kinds of things such entities would be, if they existed.
Inventing Right and Wrong, bluntly begins with the opening sentence "There are no objective values". He uses several arguments to support this claim that objective values are false.
He argues that some aspects of moral thought are relative, and that objective morals require an absurd intrinsic action-guiding feature. Most of all, he thinks it is very unclear how objective values could supervene on features of the natural world see the Argument from queerness.
Fourth, he thinks it would be difficult to justify our knowledge of "value entities" or account for any links or consequences they would have. And, finally, he thinks it is possible to show that even without any objective values, people would still have reason to firmly believe in them hence, he claims that it is possible for people to be mistaken or fooled into believing that objective values exist.
The Times called the book "a lucid discussion of moral theory which, although aimed at the general reader, has attracted a good deal of professional attention. Concerning religion, he was well known for vigorously defending atheismand also arguing that the problem of evil made untenable the main monotheistic religions.
He argued that the idea of human free will is no defense for those who wish to believe in an omnicompetent being in the face of evil and suffering, as such a being could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus resulting in us choosing the good in every situation.
In he published one of his  "Evil and Omnipotence", summarizing his view that the simultaneous existence of evil and an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God was "positively irrational".
In metaphysics, Mackie made significant contributions relating to the nature of causal relationshipsespecially regarding conditional statements describing them see, for example, Mackie [ citation needed ] and the notion of an INUS condition.Evil and Omnipotence J. L. Mackie The problem of evil, according to Mackie, is that the untenable in the discussion of (3).
Second, it is not plausible to maintain that all evil results Evil and Omnipotence (J. L. Mackie) 5 The Paradox of Omnipotence (but not the problem of evil!). MACKIE "EVIL & OMNIPOTENCE" - 2. J.L. Mackie's essay begins by setting out the Problem of Evil & Suffering. proposed by John Hick in the s (based on Irenaeus), There's a detailed discussion of this as part of the Design Argument.
For this reason, Mackie does not think that they are of any help to the theologian trying to respond to the problem of evil. His discussion of each is intended to make clear the reasons for which they fail to address the real problem. J.L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" The philosopher J.L.
Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called “Evil and Omnipotence,” in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other. J. L.
Mackie () Evil & Omnipotence - SUMMARY J.L. Mackie 's essay begins by setting out the Problem of Evil & Suffering. In section A, Mackie outlines the "Adequate Solutions" offered by some religious thinkers.
Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" 0. Introduction Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the. EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE By J. L. Mackie University of Sydney. The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers. In J.L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence,” he argues against the existence of God. John L. Mackie claims that theorists are irrational because as an all good omnipotent being cannot allow evil to exist. Chapter 3 presents the research results and discussion on finding.
L. Mackie. Jump to navigation Jump to search John Leslie Mackie, FBA In he published one of his "Evil and Omnipotence", summarizing his view that the simultaneous existence of evil and an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God was "positively irrational".Alma mater: University of Sydney, Oriel College, Oxford.