Questions of Omnipotence including a possible reply to The Rock paradox vs. Gods Omnipotence with relation to Mavrodes and physics
Questions Concerning Omnipotence
n Aquinas, Mavrodes, Frankfurt and Kenny
1. Define Omnipotence. Does it mean to be able to do anything at all or to simply be the 'most' powerful being.
2. Does Decartes response involving Gods free will to change the laws (that He created) at least in principle, successfully reply to all questions of Gods Omnipotence? For example, if He wished to create a square circle could he not suspend the laws of contradiction to do so? p 413 - foot notes.
3. Aquinas changes his definition of Devine Omnipotence to state that 'God can do whatever is possible.'(p 415 par 2) Kenny points out the need for clarification with the term 'possible' citing natural and supernatural possibility. It seems that all distinctions would be problematic for mono-theism. Consider this; Can God create a child for Himself to rear who has many God-like powers including rule over humans? If He can Does this not imply the possibility of poly-theism?
4. Is Mavrodes classification of creating a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift as a 'pseudo-task' with no power at all ,acceptable? ( p 412 par 2)
5. If God created a stone of infinite weight this would satisfy the condition of it's not being movable. It seems that God has already created beings with the property of infinity such as the universe and, if you side with Decartes, numbers. Gods inability to find the last number is in no way detrimental to his omnipotence because of its property of infinity. Just as Gods infinite power to count can survive the inability to conclude a last number, so should his infinite power to lift survive the inability to lift an infinite weight. At best the task of lifting the object becomes the psuedo-task that Mavrodes was...
More Philosophy
essays:
Stoicism
... be defined beforehand, but there was an effort to create a precise convention that adapted general principles in specific terms. Here lays a problem in Stoic reasoning, the distinction between ...
Existence of God Benedict De S
... to contradict God's existence it must have something in common with God externally, through which it can act on God. For example, a square circle does ... is limited to the understanding things are perceived clearly and distinctly convinced me until Spinoza came along and destroyed it all ...
Phaedo
... It notes that we classify physical shapes that we experience (written, printed, drawn, etc.) as inexact representations of geometrically perfect regular figures (squares, circles, triangles ...
What is the natural law? What are its principles? How does it relate to positive laws?
... . The State which we arrive at is in essence the very principle in which Aquinas sought to put forward in his political theory. The marrying ... which cannot be found by human experience and history. It is important to note that the fact that the Natural Law is supposedly derived from rational ...
Faith and Reason
... Therefore, Aquinas is self-contradicting by making reason hold so much value in his other writings, but claiming here that faith is a necessary component. In reply on behalf of Aquinas to ...
Aquinas and Hobbes
... states that Aquinas' moral psychology can be broken down to three distinct human functions. The first function is intelligence. Bourke defines Aquinas' view ... is what composes Aquinas' principle of personal freedom. Bourke's third function is emotion. He states that Aquinas divides emotion into ...
What Is Science; Is Medicine A Science?
... topic, the first question to focus on, is how one defines a science. Some would say that a more distinct line could be drawn between what is a science and ... line of argument, is not a science. I believe that clarification of one part of the above argument is needed; that ...
What Is Science; Is Medicine A Science?
... topic, the first question to focus on, is how one defines a science. Some would say that a more distinct line could be drawn between what is a science and ... line of argument, is not a science. I believe that clarification of one part of the above argument is needed; that ...