Omnipotence and other puzzles Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy. co.uk © Michael Lacewing

Definition 1 Omnipotence means ‘all-powerful’; but how should this be understood? The power to do anything Including the logically impossible?

Limits to omnipotence 1: logic Is logic a limitation on God’s power? God can’t change logic, not because of a lack of power, but because any description of a logically impossible state of affairs or power is not a description at all

Definition 2 The power to do whatever it is possible for a perfect being (or the greatest possible being) to do Possessing every power it is logically possible to possess Is going jogging a separate ‘power”? Or is it, instead, an exercise of free will moving a body? God can do this

Limits to omnipotence 2: stone paradox Can God create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If yes, he can’t lift it; if no, he can’t create it ‘The power to create a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is logically incoherent, so it’s not a possible power. Or: the stone is, by definition, impossible to lift. If God lacks the power to lift a stone it is logically impossible to lift, there is still no power God lacks.

Limits to omnipotence 3: evil Can God commit evil? If God is all-good, should we say no? God can commit evil, but always chooses not to There is no distinct power of ‘committing evil’ because ‘evil’ is not a type of act. There is no distinct power of ‘committing evil’ because ‘evil’ is simply the absence of good. Evil is failure.

Omniscience, transcendence and perfect goodness If God transcends time, God can know the future If God is not transcendent, is God omniscient? If God knows the future, do we have free will? Free will is good, and a perfectly good being would want us to have free will

Knowing the future If God knows the future, this is not because he can predict - his knowledge is infallible. If God knows what I will be doing on 22 May, 2023, is what I do that day already determined or fixed? From God’s transcendent point of view, there is no past or future - so the future is as fixed as the past?

Malcolm’s ontological argument Either God exists or God does not exist. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist. (If God exists, it is necessarily true that God exists.) If God does not exist, God cannot come into existence. (If God exists, it is necessarily false that God exists, i.e. God’s existence is impossible.) God’s existence is not impossible. So it is not true that God does not exist. Therefore, God must exist.

Response Is God’s existence logically possible? Not if the concept of God is incoherent. Does it make sense to suppose a being that exists necessarily, if it exists at all? Define a ‘super-devil’ as one that, if it exists, it exists necessarily - can we deduce that such a creature exists?

Response Why think it is either necessarily true or necessarily false that God exists? Malcolm argues that it follows from God’s not depending on anything, and having neither beginning nor end. But the correct conclusion is only if God exists, God doesn’t depend on anything… Whether God exists remains contingent.