Sophia 49 (3):433-445 (2010)

William Hasker
Huntington University
Andrew H. Gleeson has written an essay commenting on an exchange between Dewi Z. Phillips and me, arguing that I was mistaken to dismiss Phillips’ criticism of the standard definition of omnipotence as unsuccessful. Furthermore, he charges Swinburne, me, and analytic theists in general, with an excessive anthropomorphism that obliterates the distinction between Creator and creature. In response, I contend that all of Gleeson’s criticisms are unsound
Keywords Omnipotence  Anthropomorphism  Logical possibility  Phillips  Swinburne  Hasker  Gleeson
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11841-010-0187-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,586
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

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
41 ( #235,793 of 2,348,754 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #99,308 of 2,348,754 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes