Logical Truth and Omnipotence I have a question about omnipotence and necessity. In your writings, debates, and teachings, you follow Flint and Freddoso's definition of omnipotence. Key to their definition is that God cannot actualize logically impossible states of affairs, such as making a round square. When I used this definition of omnipotence in a discussion with an atheist, he responded with a kind of Euthyphro objection. He said the theist must choose between two options. The first horn is that God decides the fundamental "laws" of logic and math. If this is true, then per Descartes, fundamental truths of logic and math are contingent. That is to say, they could have been different. Thus, 2+2 could have equaled 3. Or "A" could be "not-A" at the same time in the same way. The second horn is that the fundamental laws of logic and math could not have been any different and, thus, are truly necessary because they could not have been different. If this is true, then fundamental truths of mathematics and logic exist in some way (as abstract objects) and God is subject to them. It seems inconceivable to think the first horn is true because I cannot even think of 2+2=3 of that the law of non-contradiction is not true because I have to assume the law of non-contradiction to deny it. So horn one seems like it should be rejected because it leads to absurdities. If the second horn is true, then God's sovereignty seems impugned because God is forced to comply with something external to himself. Because this dilemma is so similar to the Euthyphro dilemma in the context of the moral argument, my intuition is to split the horns by appealing to the possibility of some third alternative such as: "God wills that the law of non-contradiction (etc.) obtain because they are consistent with his nature." In this way, the laws aren't contingent or external to God. But this proffered third option seems less plausible to me than it does in the context of the moral argument. Can you shed some light on this for me? Thank you. -Ryan [...] The first horn of your friend's dilemma has been dubbed "universal possibilism" by Alvin Plantinga. It holds that that there are no necessary truths. Though defended by Descartes, it has been rightly rejected by almost every other Christian philosopher. For just ask yourself: is the proposition There are no necessary truths itself necessarily true or not? If so, then the position is self-refuting. If not, then that proposition is possibly false, that is to say, God could have brought it about that there are necessary truths. Using possible worlds semantics, we may say that there is, therefore, a possible world in which God brings it about that there are propositions which are true in every possible world. But if there are such propositions, then there is no world in which it is the case that there are no propositions true in every possible world, that is, it is not possible that there are no necessary truths, which contradicts universal possibilism. Moreover, Descartes' position is incredible. It asks us to believe, for example, that God could have brought it about that He created all of us without His existing, that is to say, there is a possible world in which both God does not exist and He created all of us. This is simply nonsense. There must therefore be necessary truths. However, it does not follow from the necessity of the truths of logic and mathematics that "the fundamental truths of mathematics and logic exist in some way (as abstract objects) and God is subject to them," as your friend infers. Rather, as you rightly point out, the Christian should say that the necessary truths of logic (and perhaps math)

just are representations of the way God's mind essentially thinks. Theologically, such a doctrine ties in beautifully with the prologue to John's Gospel on Christ's being the Logos of God. There's no need to introduce considerations of the divine will, however. In ethical theory that's necessary because what constitutes moral obligation is a divine imperative. But with respect to the laws of logic, there is no imperatival aspect. They are simply descriptions of how God necessarily reasons.

God, Evil, and the Rules of Logic Dr. Craig, I love your work and all that you do! I believe you are one of the chief defenders of our faith today. I am a missionary about to begin living in England and am preparing myself for the questions I may be asked. As a mental exercise I like to ask myself questions about my faith that I feel may one day be asked by an atheist or agnostic. I sometimes run down a rabbit trail of thought that I myself cannot come up with a satisfactory answer. Today, I bring you one of those rabbit trails. In your discussions on the problem of evil you often argue that a world of beings with free-will that choose to follow God and negate all suffering may not be "feasible" for God to create. Although, it does seem logically impossible to create a being that is free but only chooses the correct path, it occurs to me that God himself created logic. Why should he be subject to the rules of logic? Can God not do anything? As far as I understand God created all things that exist. He is the ultimate entity. Thus, can he not create a free being that follows him no matter what? Sure, to my human understanding that is impossible. But with God all things are possible. Could he not have created a world where freedom of choice and ultimate happiness co-exist? This is a question that keeps me up at night. God himself created reason and logic. Why is he subservient to it? Am I missing something here? I hope you can take the time to respond to this question that currently plagues me. Either way, thank you for all that you do and I pray that you know you have made a great difference in many lives! -Dylan I’m glad, Dylan, that you will be serving the Lord in the UK. May He greatly use you! First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding evident in your question. When we say that some possible worlds are not feasible for God, we are not saying that such worlds are logical impossibilities. There is no logical impossibility involved in a sinless world in which people always freely choose to do the right thing. The point rather is that such a world, though logically possible, may be infeasible for God because the counterfactuals needed to actualize such a world may not be true. Imagine a possible world in which the apostle Peter freely affirms Christ in the very same circumstances in which he denied him. Nothing logically impossible about that! The problem is that if God tried to actualize that world, things would go wrong because Peter, as we know, would freely deny Christ if placed in those circumstances. So such a world is not feasible for God. (If you don’t grasp this point, you need to read some more on divine middle knowledge, e.g., the relevant chapter in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview [IVP, 2003].) Next, you claim that God freely created logic and therefore transcends the rules of logic. Now why do you think that? Such a view, after all, is not the mainstream view of Christian theology but lies on the extremist fringe. By far and away most Christian theologians do not think that God has

the power to do what is logically impossible or to have created different rules of logic so that what is logically impossible would have been logically possible. You seem to give two justifications for such a radical view: (i) God is omnipotent, and (ii) God is the creator of everything. But as for (i) there is no reason to construe omnipotence to entail the ability to do the logically impossible (take a look at my Brown Bear and Red Goose book, “God Is All-Powerful”—or the relevant section in Philosophical Foundations!). Logical impossibilities like creating a round square or making a rock too heavy for God to lift are not “things” at all but just contradictory combinations of words. Moreover, if you do think that God can do logical impossibilities, then the problem of evil immediately evaporates, for then God can bring it about that both evil exists and He exists, even though that is logically impossible! Even if evil proves that it is logically impossible that God exists, God can bring it about that He does not exist and that He exists, so no problem! As for (ii) I don’t think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He needn’t be thought to be the Creator of logic’s laws. Rather I’d say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of God’s mind. The Bible says, “In the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic. What you’re missing, then, is the third way between the horns of your dilemma: the laws of logic are neither arbitrarily willed by God nor is He subservient to them; rather they are grounded in His nature. by William Lane Craig