Skip to main content
Log in

Divine omnipotence and impossible tasks: An intensional analysis

  • Articles
  • Published:
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Bibliography

  1. American Jurisprudence 2nd: 1965, Criminal Law.

  2. Anderson, C. Anthony: 1980, ‘Some new axioms for the logic of sense and denotation: Alternative (O)’, Nous 14, pp. 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, W.W. Rouse: 1960, A Short Account of the History of Mathematics (Dover Publications, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brody, Baruch A., ed.: 1974, Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brody, Baruch A.: 1980, Identity and Essence (Princeton University Press, Princenton, N.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davidson, Donald: 1967, ‘The logical form of action sentences’, in The Logic of Decision and Action (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh), edited by Nicholas Rescher.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fitch, Frederic Brenton: 1952, Symbolic Logic (Ronald Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frankfurt, Harry G.: 1964, ‘The logic of omnipotence’, The Philosophical Review 73, pp. 262–263.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hughes, G.E., and Cresswell, M.J.: 1968, An Introduction to Modal Logic (Methuen and Co. Ltd., London).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keene, G.B.: 1960, ‘A simpler solution to the paradox of omnipotence’, Mind 69, pp. 74–75.

    Google Scholar 

  11. LaCroix, Richard: 1977, ‘The impossibility of defining ‘omnipotence‘’, Philosophical Studies 32, pp. 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lucas, Billy Joe: 1981, The Logic of Omniscience (Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mavrodes, George: 1963, ‘Some puzzles concerning omnipotence’, The Philosophical Review 72, pp. 221–223. Reprinted in Brody [2].

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mavrodes, George: 1977, ‘Defining omnipotence’, Philosophical Studies 32, pp. 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meierding, Loren: 1980, ‘The impossibility of necessary omnitemporal omnipotence’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11, pp. 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montague, Richard: 1969, ‘On the nature of certain philosophical entities’, Monist 53, pp. 159–194. Reprinted in Montague [18].

    Google Scholar 

  17. Montague, Richard: 1970, ‘Pragmatics and intensional logic’, Synthese 22, pp. 68–94. Reprinted in Montague [18].

    Google Scholar 

  18. Montague, Richard: 1974, Formal Philosophy, edited by Richmond H. Thomason (Yale University Press, New Haven).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Plantinga, Alvin: 1967, God and Other Minds (Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Plantinga, Alvin: 1974, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Quine, W.V.O.: 1961, ‘Reference and modality’ in From a Logical Point of View (Harper & Row, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reichenbach, Bruce R.: 1980, ‘Mavrodes on omnipotence’, Philosophical Studies 37, pp. 211–214.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Savage, C. Wade: 1967, ‘The paradox of the stone’, The Philosophical Review 76, pp. 74–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schrader, David E.: 1979, ‘A solution to the stone paradox,’ Synthese 42, pp. 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Swinburne, Richard: 1973, ‘Omnipotence’, American Philosophical Quarterly 10, pp. 231–237.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I am indebted to Jasper Hopkins and Billy Joe Lucas for extensive critical comments. Hopkins made an important correction to my definition of maximal omnipotence and Lucas pointed out that the formal proof given does not lead to the conclusion that God cannot exist, unless we replace (1) – (4) by their necessitations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, C.A. Divine omnipotence and impossible tasks: An intensional analysis. Int J Philos Relig 15, 109–124 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137059

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137059

Keywords

Navigation