A Fallacious solution is defined as an argument which rejects one of the propositions but then completely reasserts it later in the argument, to solve the problem. The first example Mackie conveys is that "Good cannot exist without evil." This argument suggests the logical belief that if there were no evil in the world, consequently, there could be no good at all. Basically, saying that good and evil exist as counter partners and function together. Mackie rejects this argument because it implies that God is bound by logical necessities. If this was true then a good thing will not eliminate evil as far as it can. Furthermore, Mackie argues and states in the text that if one granted the term good as an ontological principle, only the smallest amount of evil is necessary for good to exist but more evil exists than necessary.
The next example, as stated in the article "Evil is necessary as a means to good." which Mackie believes states as a severe restriction on Gods power. This is an implication that God is bound by casual laws. The view of Gods limited by casual as stated in the text also conflicts with the view that casual laws are them selves made by God. An omnipotent God could create good without evil if this is simply a causal principle. I agree with this notion and believe that if God is truly powerful he could create good without the supposed counter partner evil.
The third example is that "The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil." The argument defines levels of evil in opposition to levels of good. It states that first order evil exists as a prerequisite for second order good. Mackie disproves this argument because, if true, God would not be benevolent or sympathetic, qualities believed used to define "wholly good." It seems as if true that God is not concerned to minimize evil but only to promote good. Both Mackie and I agree to this notion and that a wholly good God would create levels of good without causing evil.