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

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


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



    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


Added to PP

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