Omnipotence, etc

1
Omnipotence, etc

• Philosophy of Religion 2008
• Lecture 1

2
Today

• Course Admin
• Intro to first topic coherence of
  theism/attributes of God
• One attribute omnipotence. How to understand
  this?
• A problem for omnipotence paradox of the stone
• Further reading, questions

3
1 Course outline
4
2 First topic divine attributes

• Unique
• Incorporeal
• Unchanging
• Eternal
• Good
• Benevolent/loving

• Omnipotent
• Omnisicient
• Wise
• Just
• Free
• A person (controversial!)

5
Is theism coherent?

• Could there be such a being?
• A being possessing ANY of these attributes?
• A being possessing ALL these attributes?

6
Which attributes are essential?

• Suppose God knows the answer to any question
  that can be asked except this what colour shoes
  did Martha Washington wear on the day of her
  wedding to George? Suppose God has somehow
  forgotten this fact and has forgotten how to
  deduce it from other facts he knows I believe
  that God does know the answer to this question.
  But I am not prepared to grant that if he didnt
  know it he would no longer be divine
• (Steven Davis, from Davies, Introduction p14)

7
3 Omnipotence

• Omnipotence means being able to do anything
• The mathematical truths which you call eternal
  have been laid down by God, and depend on him
  entirely no less than the rest of his creatures
  even those truths which are called eternalas
  that the whole is greater than its partwould
  not be truths if God had not so established.
• (Descartes, Letter to Mersennes in Davies p183)

8
Logical impossibilities?

• Aquinas
• Gods power, considered in itself, extends to
  all such objects as do not imply a contradiction
  and as regards things that imply a
  contradiction, they are impossible to God as
  being impossible in themselves. Consequently,
  Gods power extends to things that are possible
  in themselves, and such are the things that do
  not involve a contradiction (De Potentia, in
  Davies p184)
•  Swinburne
• A logically impossible action is not an action.
  It is what is described by a form of words which
  purport to describe an action, but do not
  describe anything which it is coherent to suppose
  could be done (Coherence of Theism p149)

9
A revised definition

• b) Omnipotence means being able to do anything
  that it is logically possible to do
• But can God do things that go against his other
  attributes?
• Things that require a body?
• Can God do wrong?

10
Can God do wrong?

• Aquinas
• To be able to sin is to be able to fail in
  doing, which cannot be reconciled with
  omnipotence. It is because God is omnipotent that
  he cannot sin
• (Summa Theologiae, in Davies p188)
• Pike not necessarily a weakness but to be God,
  God cannot do wrong

11
Another alternative

• c) An omnipotent God is able to do anything that
  is logically possible for him
• Mr McEar
• But if Gods attributes are necessary for him to
  be God, he cannot act in ways inconsistent with
  them without contradiction

12
Backtrack another problem

• b) Omnipotence means being able to do anything
  that it is logically possible to do
• Swinburne
• We should hardly regard the fact that an
  unmarried spirit could not get divorced as
  showing that he was not omnipotent
• (Coherence of Theism p150)

13
States of affairs

• d) Omnipotence means being able to bring about
  any logically possible state of affairs
• e) A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and
  only if he is able to bring about any (logically
  possible) state of affairs after t
• Swinburnes final version
• f) a person P is omnipotent at a time t if and
  only if he is able to bring about any logically
  contingent state of affairs after t, the
  description of which does not entail that P did
  not bring it about at t (Coherence of Theism
  p152)

14
Omnipotence as maximal power?

• Omnipotence doesnt mean being able to do
  anything at all
• But doing more than any other being
• There can only be one such omnipotent being

15
4 Paradox of the stone

• Mavrodes
• can God create a stone too heavy for him to
  life? This poses a dilemma. If we say that God
  can create a stone, then it seems there might be
  such a stone. And if there might be a stone too
  heavy for Him to life, then He is evidently not
  omnipotent. But if we deny that God can create
  such a stone, we seem to have given up his
  omnipotence already. Both answers lead us to the
  same conclusion. (in MP, p113)

16
Suggested solutions

• Mavrodes self-contradictory
• Hoffman and Rosenkrantz perhaps Gods
  omnipotence is contingent
• Savage Mavrodes begs the question ( but the
  paradox is still dissolvable )
• Swinburne both Mavrodes and Savage miss the
  point (but the paradox is still dissolvable)!

17
Extra suggested reading

• Davies, Introduction Chapter 9
• Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, Omnipotence in
  Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Religion
• Brown and Nagasawa (2005) Anything you can do
  God can do better American Philosophical
  Quarterly 42 (also at www.philosophy.bham.ac.uk/st
  aff/nagasawa _Stone.pdf)
• Nelson Pike (1969) 'Omnipotence and God's Ability
  to Sin,' American Philosophical Quarterly 6(3)

18
For the seminar

• Consider
• Must God be omnipotent?
• Which is the best definition of omnipotence?
• Is it immune from criticism?
• Is there a satisfactory solution to the paradox
  of the stone?
• But most important, bring your own questions and
  ideas!