Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone because its power is equal to itself—thus, removing the omnipotence, for there can only be one omnipotent being, but it nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2—as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so.
The presence of all these properties in a single entity has given rise to considerable theological debate, prominently including the problem of evil, the question of why such a deity would permit the existence of evil. It is accepted in philosophy and science that omnipotence can never be effectively understood. [citation needed]
P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists. P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).
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.
Kenneth Einar Himma claimed that omniscience and omnipotence may be incompatible: if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create a being with free will; if he is omniscient, then he should know exactly what such a being will do (which may technically render them without free will). This analysis would render the ontological argument ...
"Rise above the storm, and you will find the sunshine." — Mario Fernández "You don't always need a plan. Sometimes, you just need to breathe, trust, let go, and see what happens." — Mandy Hale
There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world. Plantinga refers to the first statement as "Leibniz's lapse" as the opposite was assumed by Leibniz. [20] The second proposition is more contentious.
Many Wall Street analysts think the S&P 500 will rise for the third consecutive year in 2025. The S&P is roughly one-third of the way to hitting that mark already. If Wall Street is right ...