Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T06:09:27.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding omnipotence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2012

KENNETH L. PEARCE  and
ALEXANDER R. PRUSS
KENNETH L. PEARCE
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Mudd Hall of Philosophy, 3709 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0451, USA e-mail: kpearce@usc.edu
ALEXANDER R. PRUSS
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97273, Waco, TX 76798-7273, USA e-mail: Alexander_Pruss@baylor.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An omnipotent being would be a being whose power was unlimited. The power of human beings is limited in two distinct ways: we are limited with respect to our freedom of will, and we are limited in our ability to execute what we have willed. These two distinct sources of limitation suggest a simple definition of omnipotence: an omnipotent being is one that has both perfect freedom of will and perfect efficacy of will. In this article we further explicate this definition and show that it escapes the standard objections to divine omnipotence.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 403 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albritton, Rogers (1985) ‘Freedom of will and freedom of action’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 59, 239–251.Google Scholar
Aquinas, St Thomas (1921) The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (tr.) (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne).Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1961) ‘Ifs and cans’, in Austin, , Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 205–232.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry (1982) ‘The importance of what we care about’, Synthese, 53, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1973) ‘Omnipotence’, Philosophy, 48, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, Robert (1996) The Significance of Free Will (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
La Croix, Richard R. (1977) ‘The impossibility of defining “omnipotence”’, Philosophical Studies, 32, 181–190.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (2003) ‘Finkish dispositions’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, William E. (1977) ‘Ross on omnipotence’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 8, 142–147.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. (1994) ‘Dispositions and conditionals’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merricks, Trenton (2003) Objects and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1967) God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Ross, James F. (1969) Philosophical Theology (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill).Google Scholar
Sobel, Jordan Howard (2004) Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Watson, Gary (2004) ‘Volitional necessities’, in Agency and Answerability: Selected Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 88–122.Google Scholar
Wielenberg, Erik J. (2000) ‘Omnipotence again’, Faith and Philosophy, 17, 26–47.Google Scholar
Wierenga, Edward (1983) ‘Omnipotence defined’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 43, 363–375.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard (1993) ‘Moral incapacity’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93, 59–70.Google Scholar