Abstract
Much contemporary analytic philosophy understands the power of God as belonging to the same logical space as the power of human beings: a power of efficient causation taken to the maximum limit. This anthropomorphic picture is often explicated in terms of God's capacity to bring about any logically possible state of affairs, so-called omnipotence. D.Z. Phillips criticized this position in his last book, The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. I defend Phillips's argument against recent criticism by William Hasker, contending that the omnipotence thesis is either false or trivial. I trace the superficial plausibility of the thesis to a Cartesian understanding of personal agency, in the light of which God's power over the whole material world is an inflated version of our more modest power over our own bodies: it is the power of immaterial souls to control material phenomena. This comparison is expressed to perfection in the work of Richard Swinburne, my main target. I argue that by making God a force among other possible forces, in-principle able to be resisted, however feebly, by contrary forces, this picture reduces the Creator to a creature.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 603-616 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Sophia: International Journal For Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysical Theology and Ethics |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2010 |
Keywords
- Anthropomorphism
- Hasker
- Logical possibility
- Omnipotence
- Phillips
- Swinburne