What Makes A Supremely Perfect Being?

deduce that a perfect being would not give me a deceptive faculty. If we do not

Before we begin our journey into the analysis of omnipotence, we need to frame this term within a particular definition, so that our discussion of the word will stay focused and clear. The word omnipotent itself means something having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force. Or in more modern and easy to understand terms: all-powerful. However, there is a caveat to such a simple definition. If we impose the meaning of the word omnipotence itself as the functional definition of one of God’s divine attributes, we encounter some problems. These problems were recognized early on in church history. The first problem that I will address is whether divine omnipotence means the ability to do anything, or whether it means the ability to a particular set of things. “But how art thou omnipotent, if thou art not capable of all things?” According to Anselm, we need to distinguish acts of doing into two categories. One category is the act of doing something that is powerful. The second category is the act of doing something that is impotent, or showing weakness. When a being performs an act that is impotent, it also gives the forces which are contrary to that being greater power over itself. An example that Anselm gives to demonstrate an impotent act is the ability to become corrupted. Being corruptible is worse than being incorruptible. When you are corruptible,

perfection, and therefore, if he were not to exist, there would have to be a higher form of

I have an idea of a perfect being; it must contain in reality all the

The logical argument from a theist on how to balance the existence of God, and his Omni properties (Omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient) is refers to the problem of evil. Omnipresent means, that God is present everywhere. Omnipotent means, that God is all powerful. Omniscient means, that God is all knowing. Omnibenevolent means, that God is all loving. His Omni properties basically means that God is the source of love, and a very powerful being, indeed. The question of if God truly has all these characteristics, why is there still suffering in the world such as, wars, murder, inequality, terror attacks, rape and many more instances that someone has become victim of someone……

J. L. Mackie’s “Evil and Omnipotence” criticizes the argument that God exists by showing that religious beliefs are positively irrational and that parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. The problem of evil is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. The problem of evil is a logical problem for only the people who believe that there is a God who is both (1) omnipotent and (2) wholly good; yet (3) evil exists in the world. If God is wholly good and omnipotent, then how can there be a presence of evil in the world. Given the presence of evil, we must either conclude that God does not have the power to prevent the suffering that evil causes in which case God is not omnipotent or that God does not wish

Vocabulary Words Caprice (n) - a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior No one could better enjoy liberty, yet no one could submit with more grace than she did to constraint and caprice. (Page 4-7) Victor, throughout the course of the novel, grows with a greater mercurial temperament. He exemplified the word capricious. At one moment, he could be joyous with Elizabeth and then the next moment turn to despair as he thought of his horrible creation which snuffed the life of his youngest brother, William and dearest friend, Clerval.

exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists.

The logical problem of evil is often referred to as the inconsistent triad, this being that the following propositions; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists, are inconsistent. Also known as a reduction ad absurdum argument, whereby all three propositions cannot be true together. Theists, like Swinburne, come to the conclusion that the three propositions are compatible with one another, whereas atheists, like Mackie, believe that they are incompatible and therefore God does not exist. I shall be arguing in line with Swinburne’s view, describing the following defenses, indicating that there is no logical problem of evil.

Anselm believed in a perfect being theology, and support for premise one resides within Anselm's Principle of God's Necessary Perfection (Marenbon 121). A being 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' is by definition the greatest being, or most perfect being, possible. He uses the idea that 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's mind as a starting point, and seeks to build upon this foundation to show that God necessarily exists in reality as well. If it could not be conceived in one's understanding, then as far as this argument is concerned, it couldn't be shown to exist in reality as well.

This is a great blow against classic theology that describes God as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, ect… However, the process theologians argue that God is the most-powerful being, the most-knowing being, and the most-good being that could exist. This slight change in thinking complete attacks the view of the classical theologian’s views in their perfect God. In process theology many arguments are made to fight the “all” standing of the classical Theologians. Arguments that point the inconsistency of an all-powerful and all-good God that allows evil to exist in the world. A popular response to the existence of evil is that God graced humanity with the gift of free will. However, the process theologians have asked how an all knowing God can allow free will, if he knows what everyone will choose. These two arguments against that “all” God have allowed the process to take a slightly weaker stance, the “most” God. This allows God to know the most possible, but not necessarily all future events. And therefore free will is plausible and evil can exist in a world where an extremely good and extremely powerful God also

An omni-generic attribute, refers to that which holds of any substance but does not contribute to its essence, such as existence, duration, or number. According to Descartes, to not possess this kind of attribute is a kind of privation or lack of the attribute itself. For example, if a ball is not red it lacks the color red. Therefore, if it is essential that God is both perfect and infinite then non-existence would imply that a perfect being suffers some kind of privation. Clearly this is preposterous, for if a perfect being were to lack anything it would essentially cease to be perfect. Ergo, God exists by virtue of His perfection.

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

In this paper, we will discuss only 5 of these attributes: omnipotence, immutability, impassibility, timelessness and omniscience. Gregory Boyd summarizes these 5 attributes in his book Is God to Blame? (pp 42-43)

One possible answer is the fact that we can not see what God’s plans are, and so in the scheme of the entire universe our error could be making everything perfect. A second and more in-depth answer Descartes argues errors are mistaken judgments. When looking at what a judgment is composed of, one finds it involves two things, the intellect and the will. Both are faculties of the soul or self; whose existence is proved in the second meditation. The Intellect is limited, “through the intellect alone, [one] merely perceives ideas about which [one] can render a judgment. Strictly speaking, no error is to be found in the intellect when properly viewed in this manner.” (56) There is no error because the intellect does not make a judgment it simply takes in information. Descartes says error arises when the will affirms or denies a judgment the intellect has