Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/64687
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Conference paper |
Title: | More on the Power of God: A rejoinder to William Hasker |
Author: | Gleeson, Andrew Hampton |
Citation: | Sophia, 2010; 49(4): pp.617-629 |
Publisher: | Springer |
Issue Date: | 2010 |
ISSN: | 0038-1527 |
Conference Name: | Biennial Conference in Philosophy, Religion and Culture (2010 : Sydney, Australia) |
School/Discipline: | School of Humanities : Philosophy |
Statement of Responsibility: | Andrew Gleeson |
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. |
Keywords: | Omnipotence; Logical possibility; Constitution; Nature; Phillips; Hasker |
Description: | From the issue entitled "Special Issue on 2 Conferences: Biennial Conference in Philosophy, Religion and Culture; and the APRA Conference 2010 / Guest Edited by Andrew Murray and Morgan Luck" |
Rights: | © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11841-010-0225-1 |
Appears in Collections: | Philosophy publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.