Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Theists generally agree that God is a personal being and that God is omniscient, [note 2] but there is some disagreement about whether "omniscient" means: "knows everything that God chooses to know and that is logically possible to know"; or instead the slightly stronger: "knows everything that is logically possible to know" [note 3]
But it does not. For now the objector can draw no damaging conclusion from this answer. And the reason is that he has just now contended that such a stone is compatible with the omnipotence of God. Therefore, from the possibility of God's creating such a stone it cannot be concluded that God is not omnipotent. The objector cannot have it both ways.
As opposed to a theodicy (a justification for God's actions), Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains moral evil. Significantly, Plantinga does not need to assert that his new ...
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic religious philosophy of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of God's characteristics, along with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.
The Augustinian theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil, [2] which raises the concern that if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world. Evidence of evil can call into question God's nature or his existence – he is either not omnipotent, not benevolent, or does not exist. [3]
The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil, [2] [10] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and a wholly good god. [3]
A formal distinction exists between the attribute of omnipotence and the attribute of omniscience because omnipotence and omniscience are inseparable for an omnipotent being (God); omnipotence and omniscience do not have the same definition, and the distinction between them exists de re (not conceptually or propositionally – de dicto). [20]