Omnipotence
Anselm: God is “that which no greater can be conceived.”
-Paradox of the Stone: ‘can God make a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?’
John Mackie: God’s omnipotence, no matter how we define it, could contradict with free
will. It is incoherent.
-Paradox of the Square Circle
-Issue of language: semantic issue. Everyone has their own definition of omnipotence,
and therefore human limitations (we cannot ever know what power means) make it
unresolvable.
Aquinas: God can do anything that is logically possible. Therefore, according to the
rules of logic, the squared circle question is a contradiction in terms and a meaningless
question. God’s inability not to square a circle doesn’t reduce His omnipotence.
-Strength: God made the laws of logic, so he would not make things that go against
these principles (squared circle).
-Strength: Mavrodes: the paradox of the stone is logically self-contradictory, and thus
Aquinas’ definition of omnipotence is still valid.
-Strength: Kenny supports Aquinas’ definition, since it avoids inconsistencies and
incoherency.
-Strength: Augustine backs Aquinas, recognising self-imposed divine limitations.
-Strength: Swinburne: God can do anything that is logically possible.
-Weakness: Arguably, you can conceive of a greater being than one that can only do the
logically impossible (Anselm).
Descartes’ voluntarism: God is a ‘supremely perfect being’, and therefore can do
absolutely anything. God’s existence is prior to the laws of logic (God is eternal), so he is
not bound by those laws.
-Hartshorne: absolute omnipotence described in this way would not actually be a
perfect quality.
-Undermines defenses of God against the logical problem of evil. it’s not logically
possible for God to eliminate evil without contradicting his divine justice (Augustine),
taking away our free will (Augustine & Plantinga) or opportunities for growth from
evil (Irenaeus & Hick).).
Anselm: God is “that which no greater can be conceived.”
-Paradox of the Stone: ‘can God make a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?’
John Mackie: God’s omnipotence, no matter how we define it, could contradict with free
will. It is incoherent.
-Paradox of the Square Circle
-Issue of language: semantic issue. Everyone has their own definition of omnipotence,
and therefore human limitations (we cannot ever know what power means) make it
unresolvable.
Aquinas: God can do anything that is logically possible. Therefore, according to the
rules of logic, the squared circle question is a contradiction in terms and a meaningless
question. God’s inability not to square a circle doesn’t reduce His omnipotence.
-Strength: God made the laws of logic, so he would not make things that go against
these principles (squared circle).
-Strength: Mavrodes: the paradox of the stone is logically self-contradictory, and thus
Aquinas’ definition of omnipotence is still valid.
-Strength: Kenny supports Aquinas’ definition, since it avoids inconsistencies and
incoherency.
-Strength: Augustine backs Aquinas, recognising self-imposed divine limitations.
-Strength: Swinburne: God can do anything that is logically possible.
-Weakness: Arguably, you can conceive of a greater being than one that can only do the
logically impossible (Anselm).
Descartes’ voluntarism: God is a ‘supremely perfect being’, and therefore can do
absolutely anything. God’s existence is prior to the laws of logic (God is eternal), so he is
not bound by those laws.
-Hartshorne: absolute omnipotence described in this way would not actually be a
perfect quality.
-Undermines defenses of God against the logical problem of evil. it’s not logically
possible for God to eliminate evil without contradicting his divine justice (Augustine),
taking away our free will (Augustine & Plantinga) or opportunities for growth from
evil (Irenaeus & Hick).).
