4 Attributes of God

OCR A2 Philosophy and Ethics

4.1  Extracts on omnipotence

Aquinas: can God make the past not to have been?

As was said above (7, 2), there does not fall under the scope of God’s omnipotence anything that implies
a contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a
contradiction to say that ‘Socrates is sitting’, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit.
But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did
not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power.
Aquinas, Summa Theologica

1. Does Aquinas believe that God can change the past?

2. Why does changing the past require a logical contradiction?

Aquinas: can God sin?

To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is
repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless,
the philosopher (Aristotle) says that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either
on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil
things if He will. Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil:
which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner
of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.
Aquinas, Summa Theologica

3. Explain why Aquinas believes that God cannot sin.

4. Is the argument that this does not affect omnipotence convincing?

Peter Geach: god as almighty

It is fortunate that for my purposes that English has two words ‘almighty’ and ‘omnipotent’, and that apart
from any stipulation by me the words have rather different associations and suggestions. ‘Almighty’ is the
familiar word that comes in the creeds of the Church; ‘omnipotent’ is at home rather in formal theological
discussions and controversies, e.g. about miracles, and about the problem of evil. ‘Almighty’ derives by way
of Latin ‘omnipotence’ from the Greek word ‘pantokrator’; and both this Greek word, like the more classical
‘pankrates’, and ‘almighty’ itself suggest God’s having power over all things. On the other hand the English
word ‘omnipotent’ would ordinarily be taken to imply ability to do everything; the Latin word ‘omnipotens’
also predominately has this meaning in Scholastic writers, even though it is a Latinization of ‘pantokrator’.
Philosophy, vol 48

5. Explain what Geach is trying to argue in the above passage.

6. Anselm stated that almighty was just part of the definition of omnipotence. Do you agree?

52 © Owned by or under licence to Pearson Education Limited, 2009

 OCR A2 Philosophy and Ethics 4 Attributes of God

Swinburne on logical possibility

It is no objection to A’s omnipotence that he cannot make a square circle…Omnipotence denotes an ability
to bring about any logically possible state of affairs.
A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and only if he is able to bring about any logically contingent state
of affairs x after t, the descriptions of which does not entail that P did not bring x about at t. This is subject
to the restriction that a person is no less omnipotent for being unable to bring about a state of affairs if he
believes that he has overriding reason not to bring it about. So, God is omnipotent even if he is unable to do
what he believes wrong.
Swinburne, Coherence of Theism

7. Explain Swinburne’s definition in your own words.

8. ‘The problem with this definition of omnipotence is that it is circular and says very little.’ Discuss whether
you agree with this statement.

© Owned by or under licence to Pearson Education Limited, 2009 53