More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker |
| |
Authors: | Andrew Gleeson |
| |
Affiliation: | 1.Philosophy Discipline,University of Adelaide,Adelaide,Australia |
| |
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: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|