More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker

Andrew Gleeson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In 'The Power of God' (Gleeson 2010) I elaborate and defend an argument by the late D.Z. Phillips against definitions of omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. In 'Which God? What Power? A Response to Andrew Gleeson' (Hasker 2010), William Hasker criticizes my defense of Phillips' argument. Here I contend his criticisms do not succeed. I distinguish three definitions of omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. Hasker agrees that the first fails. The second fails because negative properties (like disembodiedment and simplicity) do not amount to a nature that licenses the attribution of causal powers. The third fails because it does not identify actions that can be performed without a body. It cannot be saved by appeal to the idea of purely mental acts.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)617-629
    Number of pages13
    JournalSophia: International Journal For Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysical Theology and Ethics
    Volume49
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2010

    Keywords

    • Constitution
    • Hasker
    • Logical possibility
    • Nature
    • Omnipotence
    • Phillips

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this