God's Goodness Needs No Privilege: A Reply to Funkhouser

Faith and Philosophy 23 (4):423-431 (2006)
According to Eric Funkhouser, omnipotence and necessary moral perfection (what Funkhouser calls "impeccability") are not compatible. Funkhouser gives two arguments for this claim. In this paper, I argue that neither of Funkhouser's arguments is sound. The traditional theist can reasonably claim that, contra Funkhouser, (i) there is no possible being who possesses all of God's attributes sans impeccability, and (ii) the fact that there are things that God cannot do does not entail that God lacks omnipotence. Armed with (i) and (ii), the theist has all that is needed to refute Funkhouser's arguments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/faithphil200623437
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive Thomas D. Senor, God's Goodness Needs No Privilege: A Reply to Funkhouser
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

189 ( #20,579 of 1,932,536 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

18 ( #36,800 of 1,932,536 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.