Faith and Philosophy 34 (1):3-16 (2017)
The will of an omnipotent being would be perfectly efficacious. Alexander Pruss and I have provided an analysis of perfect efficacy that relies on non-trivial counterpossible conditionals. Scott Hill has objected that not all of the required counterpossibles are true of God. Sarah Adams has objected that perfect efficacy of will (on any analysis) would be an extrinsic property and so is not suitable as a divine attribute. I argue that both of these objections can be answered if the divine will is taken to be the ground, rather than the cause, of its fulfillment.
|Keywords||omnipotence counterpossible grounding|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Grounding Entails Counterpossible Non‐Triviality.Alastair Wilson - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (3).
Understanding Omnipotence.Kenneth L. Pearce & Alexander R. Pruss - 2012 - Religious Studies 48 (3):403-414.
New Puzzles About Divine Attributes.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 5 (2):147-157.
Counterpossibles and the ‘Terrible’ Divine Command Deity.Richard Brian Davis & W. Paul Franks - 2015 - Religious Studies 51 (1):1-19.
Describing Gods: An Investigation of Divine Attributes.Graham Oppy - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
Divine Power and Possibility in St. Peter Damian's de Divina Omnipotentia.Irven M. Resnick - 1992 - Brill.
Ghazali's Chapter on Divine Power in the Iqti Ād.Michael E. Marmura - 1994 - Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 4 (2):279.
Added to index2016-09-15
Total downloads50 ( #105,692 of 2,178,052 )
Recent downloads (6 months)24 ( #13,392 of 2,178,052 )
How can I increase my downloads?