Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T18:35:35.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geach on Omnipotence and Virginity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Murray Macbeath
Affiliation:
University of Stirling

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1988

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.)

References

1 Geach, P. T., ‘Omnipotence’, Philosophy 48, No. 183 (01 1973), 720CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in his Providence and Evil (Cambridge University Press, 1977), 328Google Scholar, and in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Cahn, Steven M. and Shatz, David (eds) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 4660.Google Scholar

2 Op cit. 8. There is rather more to what I have called Geach's ‘clinching argument’ than the passage quoted. ‘Christianity’, says Geach, , ‘requires an absolute faith in the promises of God’ (op. cit., 8)Google Scholar; and he further suggests that one can have absolute faith in someone's promises only if he or she cannot break them.

3 Op. cit., 9.

4 Op. cit., 9 (italics removed).

5 Op. cit., 9.

6 The word ‘restriction’ is mine: my exposition fo Geach's theories of omnipotence does not always use the same terminology as his own. He does, however, say (op. cit., 15) that the third theory ‘imposes a more restrictive condition than the second theory’.

7 Op.cit., 15.

8 Geach says only ‘if it so happens that Miss X already has lost her virginity’ (op. cit., 15; my italics); that is to say, he does not stipulate that Miss X has lost her virginity.

9 Op. cit., 9

10 Op. cit. 9.