Critically assess whether the attributes should be understood as subject to the limits of logical
possibility or of divine self-limitation.
Introduction
Define: Logical impossibility- Something that is logically impossible to perform as a human being.
Divine self-limitation- An attempt by God to stop himself from having the ability to do things.
Importance: Important to know whether God is purposely trying to limit his attributes or whether he
is subject to logical impossibilities like humans- and therefore not omnipotent.
Scholars: Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes
Conclusion: Subject to limits of logical possibility.
Paragraph 1
Point: Omniscience is subject to the limits of logical possibility because he cannot experience what
humans can experience.
Argument: Knowledge of what it is like to be something- Nagel wrote a famous article called ‘What
is it like to be a bat?’- The argument is that we have no idea what it is like to be a bat- we do not
have their senses, minds or vocabulary. We cannot understand the world as a bat does.
If this is applied to God, can God know what it is like to have a non-God experience? Can God know
what it is like to not know- to be ignorant?
Can God ride a bike? He may have factual knowledge of how to ride a bike, but does this mean God
can actually physically ride the bike? He cannot have the practical knowledge as this would conflict
with him being non-material.
Counterargument: Kenny- Omnipotence is just a statement of God’s power. ‘Omnipotence is the
possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes
of God to possess’- limited definition. E.g. it is not possible for God to ride a bike as this contradicts
God being non-material, but miracles fit with benevolence.
Omniscience is the traits of being all-knowing- Does God only know what is logically possible?
Contradictions in knowledge if not e.g. God knowing what it is like both to know and to not know.
Paragraph 2
Point: Self-limitation is not a good defence against God’s limited omnipotence.
Argument: Augustine- ‘He does what he does, not because he suffers what he does not will’-
Augustine provides a limited interpretation- God can do anything that he wills or chooses to do. He
‘self-imposes’ limitations, for example because he is benevolent, he will not do evil things even
though it is within his power to do so. Whatever he does will, he is able to do. He cannot do what
will contradict other elements of his nature e.g. eternal, benevolent, non-material.
More coherent than Descartes and Aquinas-easily understood.
, Vardy: ‘God is limited by the universe he has chosen to create.’ God’s omnipotence is self-imposed.
He can only do the logically possible because of the restrictions he has put on himself by creating a
world in which logical possibilities exist.
Counterargument: How can we know what God wills? Needs to be supported by benevolence or
God’s will becomes dangerous (would resemble Descartes answer). Even to impose self- limitation is
a limitation, so then is God still all-powerful?
Paragraph 3
Point: God’s omnipotence is subject to divine self-limitation which is not a problem as logical
impossibilities are ‘meaningless nonsense’.
Argument: Aquinas- ‘Whatever involves a contradiction is not held by omnipotence, for it just
cannot possibly make sense of being possible’- No, as the question is absurd. It doesn’t obey rules of
logic and is a contradiction. ‘Square circle’ is meaningless nonsense. It is logically impossible, so the
fact that God cannot do it does not impact on his omnipotence. For example, God cannot sin as this
contradicts him being perfect. This is a limited interpretation as limitations have been put on the all-
powerful.
Fixes the paradox of omnipotence- it simply no longer stands (answers all questions looked at e.g.
Can God sin? Can God lie?). Compatible with other attributes e.g. benevolence.
Anselm: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ This means that God is perfect.
God ‘cannot be corrupted, or lie, or cause what is true to be false.’ He cannot do anything which
would impede on his own power or control. He cannot sin as this shows a lack of control.
Counterargument: Makes the assumption that God is perfect and attributes human understanding
of perfection to God.
possibility or of divine self-limitation.
Introduction
Define: Logical impossibility- Something that is logically impossible to perform as a human being.
Divine self-limitation- An attempt by God to stop himself from having the ability to do things.
Importance: Important to know whether God is purposely trying to limit his attributes or whether he
is subject to logical impossibilities like humans- and therefore not omnipotent.
Scholars: Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes
Conclusion: Subject to limits of logical possibility.
Paragraph 1
Point: Omniscience is subject to the limits of logical possibility because he cannot experience what
humans can experience.
Argument: Knowledge of what it is like to be something- Nagel wrote a famous article called ‘What
is it like to be a bat?’- The argument is that we have no idea what it is like to be a bat- we do not
have their senses, minds or vocabulary. We cannot understand the world as a bat does.
If this is applied to God, can God know what it is like to have a non-God experience? Can God know
what it is like to not know- to be ignorant?
Can God ride a bike? He may have factual knowledge of how to ride a bike, but does this mean God
can actually physically ride the bike? He cannot have the practical knowledge as this would conflict
with him being non-material.
Counterargument: Kenny- Omnipotence is just a statement of God’s power. ‘Omnipotence is the
possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes
of God to possess’- limited definition. E.g. it is not possible for God to ride a bike as this contradicts
God being non-material, but miracles fit with benevolence.
Omniscience is the traits of being all-knowing- Does God only know what is logically possible?
Contradictions in knowledge if not e.g. God knowing what it is like both to know and to not know.
Paragraph 2
Point: Self-limitation is not a good defence against God’s limited omnipotence.
Argument: Augustine- ‘He does what he does, not because he suffers what he does not will’-
Augustine provides a limited interpretation- God can do anything that he wills or chooses to do. He
‘self-imposes’ limitations, for example because he is benevolent, he will not do evil things even
though it is within his power to do so. Whatever he does will, he is able to do. He cannot do what
will contradict other elements of his nature e.g. eternal, benevolent, non-material.
More coherent than Descartes and Aquinas-easily understood.
, Vardy: ‘God is limited by the universe he has chosen to create.’ God’s omnipotence is self-imposed.
He can only do the logically possible because of the restrictions he has put on himself by creating a
world in which logical possibilities exist.
Counterargument: How can we know what God wills? Needs to be supported by benevolence or
God’s will becomes dangerous (would resemble Descartes answer). Even to impose self- limitation is
a limitation, so then is God still all-powerful?
Paragraph 3
Point: God’s omnipotence is subject to divine self-limitation which is not a problem as logical
impossibilities are ‘meaningless nonsense’.
Argument: Aquinas- ‘Whatever involves a contradiction is not held by omnipotence, for it just
cannot possibly make sense of being possible’- No, as the question is absurd. It doesn’t obey rules of
logic and is a contradiction. ‘Square circle’ is meaningless nonsense. It is logically impossible, so the
fact that God cannot do it does not impact on his omnipotence. For example, God cannot sin as this
contradicts him being perfect. This is a limited interpretation as limitations have been put on the all-
powerful.
Fixes the paradox of omnipotence- it simply no longer stands (answers all questions looked at e.g.
Can God sin? Can God lie?). Compatible with other attributes e.g. benevolence.
Anselm: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ This means that God is perfect.
God ‘cannot be corrupted, or lie, or cause what is true to be false.’ He cannot do anything which
would impede on his own power or control. He cannot sin as this shows a lack of control.
Counterargument: Makes the assumption that God is perfect and attributes human understanding
of perfection to God.
