omnipotence

mmps

what are the three approaches (and their scholars) to God’s omnipotence?

1) God can do anything, even the impossible, **Descartes and Anselm**

2) God can only do the logically possible **Aquinas and Swinburne**

3) Self imposed limitation **Augustine and Geach**

what does Descartes argue?

1) needs omnipotence for Jesus for his miracles etc

2) God’s existence is prior to logic

Anselm’s argument

God can lie but due to his power he chooses not to as he is benevolent

3 flaws of God being completely omnipotent, beyond laws of nature

1. makes God an arbritrary figure who becomes unpredictable
2. problem of evil


1. Bible says God cannot lie

What is Aquinas’ argument?

only the logically possible because square circle simply cannot exist, meaningless, nonsense

1) God can only do what a **perfect** God can do = not sin

2) God cannot change the past

What is swinburne’s argument?

1) square circle is not a thing

2) God can do any **thing** because this refers to logically possible powers

what is the name of the paradox about the square circle?

paradox of omnipotence

what was Geach’s argument

Almighty is better than all poweful because the Biblical presentation of God’s power is that it surpasses human understanding but not unlimited. **power over the universe, not to do ‘anthing’**

How does Geach solve the almighty/ all powerful problem

changes ‘omnipotent’ to Greek which is ‘Pantokrator’ : this is ‘almighty’ and linked to posession of power rather than doing something.

what does augustine argue?

God is omnipotent because he is not frustrated by the limitation of his will (like us)

His will is good, while he is able to do evil, he doesn’t

what are the flaws of God limiting himself

* is this god worthy of worship if he chooses to allow the evidential problem of evil?
* he chooses to do some miracles over others

how is our interaction with God’s omnipotence?

We can only attempt to comprehend God’s omnipotence via contemplation and prayer. we are aware of our own limitation and this is **proportional to our finitude and dependence to his greatness and power**

example that Aquinas uses to explain how God can only do the logically possible

God cannot ride a bike as he doesn’t possess leg, logically possible but incapable