More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker

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. He...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gleeson, Andrew (Author)
Format: Electronic Review
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Netherlands 2010
In: Sophia
Year: 2010, Volume: 49, Issue: 4, Pages: 617-629
Further subjects:B Nature
B Book review
B Logical Possibility
B Omnipotence
B Hasker
B Phillips
B Constitution
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1785591363
003 DE-627
005 20220113002650.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220112s2010 xx |||||oo 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s11841-010-0225-1  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1785591363 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1785591363 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Gleeson, Andrew  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker 
264 1 |c 2010 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a 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. 
601 |a Williams, A. N. 
650 4 |a Hasker 
650 4 |a Phillips 
650 4 |a Nature 
650 4 |a Constitution 
650 4 |a Logical Possibility 
650 4 |a Omnipotence 
655 7 |a Rezension  |0 (DE-588)4049712-4  |0 (DE-627)106186019  |0 (DE-576)209083166  |2 gnd-content 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Sophia  |d Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 1962  |g 49(2010), 4, Seite 617-629  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)543988392  |w (DE-600)2386792-9  |w (DE-576)271774215  |x 1873-930X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:49  |g year:2010  |g number:4  |g pages:617-629 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-010-0225-1  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4033650237 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1785591363 
LOK |0 005 20220112043359 
LOK |0 008 220112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-30#F00E7D8197024F4DEF23CB08CBC7BD00E199C075 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw