OCR A-level Religious Studies
Philosophy of Religion
Nature of God
A* Example Essay
“How fair is the claim that an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely
anything, even the logically impossible?” (40)
Brief Plan
Para 1: Descartes and Anselm
Para 2: Aquinas and Swinburne
Para 3: Vary and Macquarie
Essay:
When considering God’s omnipotence, we are referring to what it means to define
his “absolute power”; to what extent is God all powerful? There are three main prepositions
to such a question, primarily the two opposing views of whether God’s power extends to the
illogical, as Descartes and Anselm would argue, or whether it remains within the restrictions
of what is logical for God such as himself to do (argued by Aquinas and Swinburne).
Nevertheless, Vardy and Macquarie’s third, and possibly most controversial view, that God
imposes limitation on himself proves to be the most fair in its reasoning as it manages to
express the omnipotence of God whilst also maintaining his other crucial characteristics.
To begin with, Descartes and Anselm open the discussion with their view that God
can all do including the logically impossible. This, in turn, implies that God can do the
illogical which Descartes would argue makes sense considering that as God was the creator
of logic, he should not then be restricted by it. This idea of God being untouched by the
boundaries of logic primarily was implied by Anselm who referred to God as “that which no
greater can be conceived”. The reliance on this quote as support for God’s intangible power
immediately presents a flaw as although God is undoubtedly portrayed as a higher being of
omnipotence, there is no direct specification to what the “greater” is; whether it is stating
nothing logically greater or nothing greater in general. Descartes, however, clearly assumes
the latter, countering such criticisms by stating that saying God can do the “logically
impossible” is simply an attempt at providing a slight reference to the extent of God’s power
and that by describing His abilities as illogical is simply a reflection of humans lack of
understanding, rather than of God. Arguably, such incompetence has been demonstrated by
humanity in the past, such as when looking at the life of Jesus. Throughout his existence,
humans always doubted his abilities and it wasn’t until he demonstrated his power through
the visual evidence of miracles e.g walking on water, that Jesus’ power was accepted.
Despite this example and the intended support of Anselm, Descartes' attempt to portray his
view’s as just is flawed…in fact, his approach as a whole is self contradicting. It’s
indisputable that Descartes aims to present the image of an ultimate, all-powerful God,
however due to his emphasis on God being unlimited by any means, he is indirectly
suggesting that God is fully able to tackle all issues, including that of evil. Mackie’s familiar
inconsistent triad comes to relevance here as if God truly is as powerful as Descartes
implies, and has the capacity to do all including the logically impossible, why is there still
suffering in the world? How does this reflect on his omnibenevolence? Furthermore,
contradictions are presented when attempts are made at giving examples of what God could
do such as creating a stone that is too heavy for He himself to lift. Overall, the claim that
Philosophy of Religion
Nature of God
A* Example Essay
“How fair is the claim that an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely
anything, even the logically impossible?” (40)
Brief Plan
Para 1: Descartes and Anselm
Para 2: Aquinas and Swinburne
Para 3: Vary and Macquarie
Essay:
When considering God’s omnipotence, we are referring to what it means to define
his “absolute power”; to what extent is God all powerful? There are three main prepositions
to such a question, primarily the two opposing views of whether God’s power extends to the
illogical, as Descartes and Anselm would argue, or whether it remains within the restrictions
of what is logical for God such as himself to do (argued by Aquinas and Swinburne).
Nevertheless, Vardy and Macquarie’s third, and possibly most controversial view, that God
imposes limitation on himself proves to be the most fair in its reasoning as it manages to
express the omnipotence of God whilst also maintaining his other crucial characteristics.
To begin with, Descartes and Anselm open the discussion with their view that God
can all do including the logically impossible. This, in turn, implies that God can do the
illogical which Descartes would argue makes sense considering that as God was the creator
of logic, he should not then be restricted by it. This idea of God being untouched by the
boundaries of logic primarily was implied by Anselm who referred to God as “that which no
greater can be conceived”. The reliance on this quote as support for God’s intangible power
immediately presents a flaw as although God is undoubtedly portrayed as a higher being of
omnipotence, there is no direct specification to what the “greater” is; whether it is stating
nothing logically greater or nothing greater in general. Descartes, however, clearly assumes
the latter, countering such criticisms by stating that saying God can do the “logically
impossible” is simply an attempt at providing a slight reference to the extent of God’s power
and that by describing His abilities as illogical is simply a reflection of humans lack of
understanding, rather than of God. Arguably, such incompetence has been demonstrated by
humanity in the past, such as when looking at the life of Jesus. Throughout his existence,
humans always doubted his abilities and it wasn’t until he demonstrated his power through
the visual evidence of miracles e.g walking on water, that Jesus’ power was accepted.
Despite this example and the intended support of Anselm, Descartes' attempt to portray his
view’s as just is flawed…in fact, his approach as a whole is self contradicting. It’s
indisputable that Descartes aims to present the image of an ultimate, all-powerful God,
however due to his emphasis on God being unlimited by any means, he is indirectly
suggesting that God is fully able to tackle all issues, including that of evil. Mackie’s familiar
inconsistent triad comes to relevance here as if God truly is as powerful as Descartes
implies, and has the capacity to do all including the logically impossible, why is there still
suffering in the world? How does this reflect on his omnibenevolence? Furthermore,
contradictions are presented when attempts are made at giving examples of what God could
do such as creating a stone that is too heavy for He himself to lift. Overall, the claim that
