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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Comments on David Palmer's "Moral Responsibility, Alternative Possibilities, and Determinism".Eric Funkhouser - 2006 - Southwest Philosophy Review 22 (2):91-93.
Review of Anna-Sofia Maurin, If Tropes. [REVIEW]Eric Funkhouser - 2004 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2004 (2).
Should We Want God to Exist?Guy Kahane - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (3):674-696.
Self-Deception and the Limits of Folk Psychology.Eric Funkhouser - 2009 - Social Theory and Practice 35 (1):1-13.
God's Moral Goodness and Supererogation.Drummond Young Elizabeth - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (2):83-95.
God and the Hypothesis of No Prime Worlds.Klaas J. Kraay - 2006 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 59 (1):49-68.
God and Goodness: A Natural Theological Perspective.Mark Wynn - 1999 - Routledge.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads196 ( #20,116 of 2,143,766 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #51,704 of 2,143,766 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.