to consideration the reply that “omnipotence has never meant the power to do what is logically impossible.” He takes this reply into consideration because it does not reject what is necessary to theism, but Mackie states that he will discuss it later in his work. Mackie then discusses theists that believe God can do what is logically impossible. Mackie explains that many of these theists believe that God creates logic. This view of logic proves inconsistent unless God is bound by logical necessities. This possibility of God being able to bind himself is what Mackie calls the Paradox of Omnipotence. The Paradox of Omnipotence is something that Mackie also explains later in his work. Now that Mackie has finished explaining that the solution set a limit to what God can do he exposes that the solution denies that evil is opposed to good. Mackie goes on to explain that possibly one may be using ‘good’ and ‘evil’ the same way as ‘great’ and ‘small.’ Mackie states that ‘great’ and ‘small’ are words that may be used as counterparts, yet they cannot be used as set features for anything. This comparison is done to explain that ‘great’ and ‘small’ can exist without each other. Mackie states that there would be no logical impossibility in everything being small or great. From this he proceeds to use another analogy to show how ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are used in a way so that they do not oppose each other. The example he uses is redness. Mackie explains that the only way we know that something is red is because of the things that are not red. Without the non-red things, one would never have noticed the red things. He then explains that it is common to give names to qualities if they have an opposite. With this fact at hand, the rule that good cannot exist without evil would not be logical. Now Mackie is nea...
