Divine Omnipotence, Divine Sovereignty and Moral Constraints on the Prevention of Evil

A Reply to Sterba

Bibliographic Data

ID16901871
AuthorsEric Reitan (0000-0002-6403-4854, Oklahoma State University, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume13
Issue9
Pages813
Publication date2022-08-31
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueReligions (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2077-1444 • E-ISSN: 2077-1444
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/rel13090813
OpenAlexW4294253246
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited4

In Is a Good God Logically Possible?, James Sterba uses the analogy of a just political state to develop evil-prevention principles he thinks a good God would follow. With the assumption that God is omnipotent, these principles entail that God would never permit free agents to bring about horrendous evil. But free agents routinely succeed in doing so: entailing a logical incompatibility between the world’s evils and the existence of a good, omnipotent God. I challenge this conclusion by sketching two ways divine omnipotence arguably entails that God would face moral constraints on the prevention of moral evil that human agents and political states do not. If my account is sound, God would be morally precluded from functioning as a sovereign governing authority in the manner of just political states. If this is correct, Sterba’s arguments might be taken to show, not that there is a contradiction between the world’s evil and the existence of a good, almighty God, but that there is a contradiction between the world’s evil and the common theistic belief that such a God is the sovereign ruler of the world

Analogy · Contradiction · Epistemology · Moral evil · Omnipotence · Political ponerology · Political science · Politics · Problem of Evil · Ruler · Sovereignty · Theism · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Law · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil · War, Ethics, and Justification

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access