Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bishop, John and Perszyk, Ken 2016. The Divine Attributes and Non-personal Conceptions of God. Topoi,

    Adams, Sarah 2015. A New Paradox of Omnipotence. Philosophia, Vol. 43, Issue. 3, p. 759.

    Hill, Scott 2014. Giving up omnipotence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 97.

    PEARCE, KENNETH L. and PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. 2012. Understanding omnipotence. Religious Studies, Vol. 48, Issue. 03, p. 403.

    Ter Ern Loke, Andrew 2012. On the Use of Psychological Models in Christology. The Heythrop Journal, p. n/a.

    Cray, Wesley D. 2011. Omniscience and worthiness of worship. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 70, Issue. 2, p. 147.

    LOKE, ANDREW 2010. Divine omnipotence and moral perfection. Religious Studies, Vol. 46, Issue. 04, p. 525.

    Pessin, Andrew 2010. Divine Simplicity and the Eternal Truths: Descartes and the Scholastics. Philosophia, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 69.

    Hanks, Peter W. 2007. A Dilemma About Necessity. Erkenntnis, Vol. 68, Issue. 1, p. 129.

    OPPY, GRAHAM 2005. Omnipotence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 71, Issue. 1, p. 58.

    Nagasawa, Yujin 2003. Thomas vs. Thomas: A New Approach to Nagel's Bat Argument. Inquiry, Vol. 46, Issue. 3, p. 377.

    Trakakis, Nick 1997. The absolutist theory of omnipotence. Sophia, Vol. 36, Issue. 2, p. 55.

    Macbeath, Murray 1988. Geach on Omnipotence and Virginity. Philosophy, Vol. 63, Issue. 245, p. 395.

    Helm, Paul 1976. Omnipotence and Change. Philosophy, Vol. 51, Issue. 198, p. 454.

    Walton, Douglas 1976. Some theorems of fitch on omnipotence. Sophia, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 20.



  • P. T. Geach (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 February 2009

It is fortunate for my purposes that English has the two words ‘almighty’ and ‘omnipotent’, and that apart from any stipulation by me the words have rather different associations and suggestions. ‘Almighty’ is the familiar word that comes in the creeds of the Church; ‘omnipotent’ is at home rather in formal theological discussions and controversies, e.g. about miracles and about the problem of evil. ‘Almighty’ derives by way of Latin ‘omnipotens’ from the Greek word ‘pantokratōr’; and both this Greek word, like the more classical ‘pankratēs’, and ‘almighty’ itself suggest God's having power over all things. On the other hand the English word ‘omnipotent’ would ordinarily be taken to imply ability to do everything; the Latin word ‘omnipotens’ also predominantly has this meaning in Scholastic writers, even though in origin it is a Latinization of ‘pantocratōr’. So there already is a tendency to distinguish the two words; and in this paper I shall make the distinction a strict one. I shall use the word ‘almighty’ to express God's power over all things, and I shall take ‘omnipotence’ to mean ability to do everything.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0031-8191
  • EISSN: 1469-817X
  • URL: /core/journals/philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *