Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:07:12.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unmakable-Because-Unliftable Stone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Murdith McLean
Murdith McLean*
Affiliation:
Grande Prairie Regional College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is customary to dismiss such queries as ‘Can God create a being he cannot control?’ and ‘Can God create a knot he cannot untie?’ with the comment that such questions in fact fail to specify a task for God to perform. The reason given is that omnipotence is included in the idea of God, with the alleged result that such expressions as ‘a being God cannot control’ and ‘a knot God cannot untie’ contain contradictions. J .L. Cowan has argued that this conventional response is mistaken, and subsequently expanded upon this contention in reply to some of its critics. I shall try to show that Cowan's defense of the coherence of expressions like these is mistaken, and with it his conclusion that since an omnipotent God clearly cannot perform such tasks the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory.

Cowan has no quarrel with one assumption of the customary reply. If the specification of a task is self-contradictory, he agrees that the inability of God to perform it is no blemish on his omnipotence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , June 1975 , pp. 717 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1975

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. See, for instance, Penelhum's, Terence, Religion and Rationality (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 231.Google Scholar

2. ‘The Paradox of Omnipotence,’ Analysis, Vol. 25 (Supplement), No. 3 (January 1965 ), pp. 102–8.

3. ‘The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited,’ Canadian journal of Philosophy, Vol. III, No.3 (March 1974), pp. 435–45.

4. Ibid., p. 439.

5. Ibid., p. 443.

6. Ibid.