How Fair is the Claim that an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible?

In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that ‘an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible’ is fair. To answer this question, it has to be understood that the meaning of God’s omnipotence is much more nuanced than it seems at first. Omnipotence is a divine attribute of the Abrahamic God that relates to God’s power and ability. Anselm and Rene Descartes are two philosophers who would agree that God’s omniscience encompasses the ability to do anything, even the logically impossible. I will evaluate their argument and highlight the errors that cause it to be the weaker position to hold by discussing other positions that are much more logically coherent and, I will conclude that the claim that an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, as not fair.

This is an interesting introduction. You clearly outline your thesis statement and you name the scholars that hold one position. It would be good to identify a scholar who holds a different position, e.g. St Thomas Aquinas who states that God can do only what is logically possible for God to do.

Anselm’s ontological argument states that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ as well as, ‘and that he has all of the perfections including power.’ (Descartes said that God is the “sum of all perfections” and that existence is a perfection as part of his ontological argument) Both Anselm and Descartes wrongly understood this to mean that God had no limits to his power, could do absolutely everything including the logically impossible. (This asserted. What makes this wrong?) Descartes further adds that just because things appear to seem logically impossible to us humans, they are not impossible for God. Anselm and Descartes deem that the claim that ‘an omnipotent God should be able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible’ is fair.

Good link back to the question at the end of this paragraph.

However, this interpretation gives rise to issues such as; compromising God’s omnibenevolence, humans’ free will, and rationality which weakens the claim that God can even do the logically impossible. (How is this the case? What inconsistencies are there by saying God can do what is illogical for us? Are you implying that God should be able to do things such as prevent human suffering? That is a problem of evil question, not an omnipotence question per se. Are you saying that God’s unlimited power infringes upon free will? That is an omniscience and eternity question. What prevents God having all power to do absolutely anything?) I will now discuss alternative stronger arguments/definitions of God’s omnipotence that do not result in the same flaws.

Thomas Aquinas effectively (saying this is “effective” is a premature conclusion) argues against Anselm and Descartes. He disagrees with the claim that ‘God can do the logically impossible’. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, states that God “can do anything that is possible” – by which he meant anything logically possible. He clarifies that God can do anything that a perfect God can do, therefore God cannot sin. Aquinas states that God can do “Everything that does not imply a contradiction”, meaning that omnipotence does not include logical contradictions such as God creating a square circle. Hence, God cannot be contractionary and be omnipotent at the same time. Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence with no contradictions makes much more sense than Descartes’s view because it does not allow for logical incoherency. Moreover, it still manages to appropriately attribute omnipotence to God successfully. Subsequently, the claim that an Omnipotent God should be able to do even the logically impossible, is not fair.

This is well argued focussing on inconsistencies and contradictions. However, you might want to think about this: What is logically possible for God to do is no necessarily what is logical for human beings since God exists epistemically distant from us. What is logical for a 2D cartoon character is not a limitation on what is possible for the artist. So while St Thomas Aquinas may be correct by definition, his definition and God’s definition of logical are not the same. So it may be that Aquinas and Descartes are in fact arguing the same thing.

Swinburne also convincingly argues that God can do everything but, not logically impossible things. He believed this because he understood that logical impossibilities cannot exist in the first place for God to do. Stones too heavy for God to pick up or square circles can never exist, therefore the claim that God can do the logically impossible is not fair nor is it valid.
St Augustine is another philosopher (theologian) who successfully argues that God’s omnipotence does not include logically impossible acts, rather it is that God purposefully limits his power. Augustine rightly (“rightly” assumes you have the answer. In this case you would say that he asserts it and in your conclusion you would argue that you believe it is the right position) asserts the idea that Descartes’s interpretation of God’s omnipotence would mean that God would have the power to be both perfectly good and create evil at the same time. Hence why Augustine claims that God must set limitations to his power such as not committing evil, because by God not self-imposing those limitations it would go against his very nature of being all good. Yet Augustine does not believe that those limitations decrease from God’s power because they are self-imposed and can be lifted whenever God desires. Augustine presents a compelling logically coherent and sound argument to render the claim that ‘God’s omnipotence means he can do absolutely everything, including the logically impossible’, is invalid. (This is well argued).

Vardy presents an even more convincing argument that is very similar to Augustine, states that God created the world in such a way that his power must be limited. (This assumes that God has even greater power in himself, but that in the world God chooses to limit himself. So Aquinas’ notion of a God that cannot perform contradictions is only the choice God makes, whereas if God chose to do so, he could be the illogically powerful God as Descartes describes him. Again, depending on how you interpret it and from what position you are standing – humans’ or God’s – Descartes and Aquinas are both right). He correctly (again, “correctly” is premature) highlights that our world contains free will and humans with rationality. Explaining that if God were to not self-impose limitations on his power and act differently, humans could not have qualities such as free will or rationality. Vardy understands, like Augustine, that because these limits are self-imposed it does not decrease from God’s omnipotence.

In conclusion, I believe that Anselm’s and Descartes’ argument that God’s omnipotence means that he can even do the logically impossible is illogical and unsuccessful. Whereas, both Augustine and Vardy successfully put forward logically satisfying arguments that do not comprise God’s omnibenevolence or the concepts of human free will. Moreover, Aquinas and Vardy are also able to, where Anselm and Descartes couldn’t, create an argument without illogical contradictions and attribute omnipotence to God. It is now clear that the claim that God’s omnipotence should be able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible is not fair nor valid.

A good conclusion following the line of reasoning that is laid out in the introduction and throughout the essay. However, you did not really explore the problems with Anselm’s and Descartes’ view in as much detail as Aquinas’ view.
AO1: You have a lot of good knowledge here, particularly on the side of Aquinas that God’s power is limited to what is “logically possible”. It would have been beneficial to see more of the other side of the argument. What are the problems of an unlimited God? Where in revelation do we see evidence for either position? What is logic for God? Etc. you mention free will without exploring it.

AO2: You have made a number of assertions without full justification and you prematurely assert that Aquinas’ position is “correct”, “right” and “effective”. You need to argue this position and then come to the conclusion that it is the most effective position to hold given what you have presented. Don’t tell us it is right, prove it is right.

It would have been worthwhile exploring some of these avenues:
• John Hick’s notion of epistemic distance (the knowledge gap between us and God because of God’s divine nature)
• Descartes’ view that God is the sum of all perfections
• God’s eternal existence outside of time
• Boethius’ notion of God as eternal (outside time) and so his knowledge does not infringe upon human freedom.
• Biblical revelation of God’s ability to do anything, e.g. stop the sun, create the universe, perform miracles, all of which appear to contradict his own laws of nature.

30/40 B
AO1: 12 Level 5 11–13 A very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding:
 Comprehension and focus: Precise and throughout.
 Knowledge and understanding: Very good in breadth or depth.
□ Material and vocabulary: Very good and appropriate.
AO2: 18 Level 4 17–20 A very good demonstration of analysis and evaluation:
 Argument & answering question: Mostly competently.
□ Analysis and evaluation: Successful and clear.
□ Development and justification: Well stated and coherent.
 Line of reasoning: Well, sustained, coherent and logical.