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

Sophia 49 (4):617-629 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-26

Downloads
41 (#400,450)

6 months
10 (#308,815)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Gleeson
Flinders University

Citations of this work

God and Evil: A View from Swansea.Andrew Gleeson - 2012 - Philosophical Investigations 35 (3-4):331-349.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Saving God: Religion After Idolatry.Mark Johnston - 2009 - Princeton University Press.
The Power of God.Andrew Gleeson - 2010 - Sophia 49 (4):603-616.

Add more references