Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
John Leslie Mackie FBA (25 August 1917 – 12 December 1981) was an Australian philosopher. He made significant contributions to ethics, the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language. Mackie had influential views on metaethics, including his defence of moral scepticism and his sophisticated defence of atheism. He wrote ...
In Arguing About Gods, Graham Oppy offers a dissent, acknowledging that "[m]any philosophers seem to suppose that [Plantinga's free-will defense] utterly demolishes the kinds of 'logical' arguments from evil developed by Mackie" but continuing: "I am not sure this is a correct assessment of the current state of play."
The problem of evil is often given in the form of an inconsistent triad. For example, J. L. Mackie gave the following three propositions: God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; Evil exists; Mackie argued that these propositions were inconsistent, and thus, that at least one of these propositions must be false. Either:
The first chapter, "The Subjectivity of Values," opens with Mackie's rejection of moral universalism: "There are no objective values." [1] This chapter is well known for advancing two arguments against moral universalism: the argument from disagreement and the argument from queerness.
The metadata below describe the original scanning. Follow the "All Files: HTTP" link in the "View the book" box to the left to find XML files that contain more metadata about the original images and the derived formats (OCR results, PDF etc.).
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
Circulating themes of wealth, power, government and socialism, the must-read gives an unconventional analysis that may change your perception on the Rockefellers and other families of similar ...
An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic. [16] God and logic