Omnipotence

[hightreason]

I was just thinking of this and so I thought I'd search out a forum on which I could post it and see what people think.

One of the leading criticisms of the Christian conceptualisation of God is that he is omnipotent. Without omnipotence, Christians would have to admit to a much less powerful God than what they suppose exists. There have been various arguments for the impossibility of omnipotence.

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That seems on its face to completely disprove omnipotence. The answer to the question has to be yes or no. If it's yes, then God would not be able to lift the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. If it is no, he would not be able to create the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. Airtight argument right? I thought so too until yesterday. Today, however, I'm actually going to disprove that argument.

The first thing I need to do is address the point of logical impossibility. For example, can God create a round square? The answer to this question clearly seems to have to be no. This, however, unlike the above argument, is not very compelling evidence at all against God's omnipotence. Despite the fact that the two look very similar on the face, they are, in fact, very different.

Our first argument (about the rock) talks about something that is a contingent truth. God's ability to lift a rock is contingent (unless you except St. Anselm's argument which brings with it baggage you probably don't want). A square not being round is a necessary truth. It is defined in the definition of the square that it is not round (in Euclidean geometry).

Therefore, when you ask the first question, you are referring to a possibility which really exists, the possibility that someone or something (God) could lift someone or something else (a rock). When you ask the second question, you are just speaking gibberish. The term "round square" doesn't actually refer to anything. It is akin to asking "Can God create a guettedoojazzle?" The answer to that question, therefore, is not "no," but rather "what the hell are you talking about?"

God cannot create logically impossible things because logically impossible things are not really things at all but merely silly combinations of words.

The question I really came here to talk about though was that as to whether God can create a rock that he can't lift. I contend that he can create such a rock, and that his ability to do so does not disprove his omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. However, it is not by definition a permanent ability. Someone could conceivably have omnipotence at one point and then cease to have it. That means that God, if omnipotent right now, could create the rock that he can't lift. After creating it, however, he would cease to be omnipotent as there would be one thing that he could not do.

Now, I know what some of you Christians are thinking. You're thinking that you don't believe in a God that could, at some point, cease to be omnipotent. You believe in a God that is, and always will be, omnipotent. Well, this is not that difficult of a problem to solve, actually.

If God does not want to stop being omnipotent, he will never stop being omnipotent. That's because his omnipotence, will allow him the ability to stop anything from happening that would take away his omnipotence. If this were true, there could be only one being in the world that was omnipotent. Multiple omnipotent beings would screw it up because what if one of them wanted to take away the omnipotence of the other and the other didn't want that... But the good news is that, if you're Christian, you probably already believe that God is the only omnipotent being, so we don't have a problem.

In order to accept this explanation, you would also have to believe that God is fundamentally the type of guy who wants to be omnipotent forever. This doesn't seem that incompatible with Christian beliefs, either, so it shouldn't cause too much problem. It might make him seem a little bit like a megalomaniac, but he kind of is anyway what with creating an entire world full of people who's sole purpose is to worship him.

So, there you have it, folks. It is entirely possible for God to be omnipotent (if there were a God).

[Angel]

Most definitions and meanings do not require a being to be able to do logically contradictory things to retain the label omnipotent. So the argument against God being omnipotent is a false dichotomy.

Again, the fallacy of numbers. Just because one can choose among several definitions or even make up their own, in no way proves that the definition I've given "there is absolutely nothing god can't do" is a false dichotomy. If one wants (needs) to elect a more limiting definition of "omnipotence," fine, but then don't tell me god can do anything he wants to or that there is nothing god can't do. As you're well aware, "omnipotence" comes from "omni," all, + "potent," powerful. So unless one explains their limiting redefinition of the term, then they have no conscionable basis for using it, because as it stands such usage misleads others who take the word at its ligitimate meaning.

It doesn't mislead anyone if you mention all of the definitions and which definition you're referring to. Chaosborder did not make up the different definitions for omnipotence but these alternative definitions have been talked about in philosophy and have been established way before this thread or Wikipedia for that matter. What is power? The ability to do "something"? Is creating a square circle, which equates to "nothing" in reality other than meaningless words, something that can be created or done? How can you create nothing? Can you apply power to "nothing"? These are things to think about when trying to understand omnipotence and these factors and others are what some philosophers have considered. Keep in mind that omnipotence also means "having great power or the greatest power".

Some meanings change because of culture and language as well, and again I don't see anything wrong with that just as long as we clarify what we mean. The Bible doesn't use the word "omnipotence" so it is not biblical in origin so I wouldn't say that adding alternative meanings to the word "omnipotence" is a way to duck any objections for God or the Bible because it's not a biblical word. The Bible simply says God is the greatest and He can do all things. In the English language, one meaning of omnipotence is being the greatest or having great power. The Bible also gives an exception to God's power when it mentions it is "impossible" for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). So the phrase "all things" in the Bible is relative because "all things" that's talked about in the Bible that can do does not include lying, so it can mean "all things" that are logically possible to do, etc, etc.


Obviously, the English speaking world and philosophers have not followed all of the exact rules, style, syntax, root words, meanings, etc. of some of the older languages (Greek, Latin, etc) when coming up with new words or concepts and I'd say nor do they have to. Take the word "atheism" for instance, which simply means "without God", yet other meanings and branches have been added to it like "positive atheism" which asserts that NO gods exist rather than just meaning not believing in one regardless of if one exists or not.

[Miles]

The Bible doesn't use the word "omnipotence" so it is not biblical in origin so I wouldn't say that adding alternative meanings to the word "omnipotence" is a way to duck any objections for God or the Bible because it's not a biblical word.

It is when people use the other "omni" terms without qualification to describe god's character. As unqualified terms,"omnificence," "omnibenovlence,' "omnipresence," and "omniscience" all establish an unconditional use of "omni." As expressed, there is no notion of "Sort of omnipresence," or "Mostly omniscience," or "Omnibenovlence except for." Therefore, when omnipotence is presented as "omnipotent, but" it becomes a duplictious tactic to get around an insurmountable problem. Understandable considering the stakes, but dishonest none the less.

The Bible also gives an exception to God's power when it mentions it is "impossible" for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). So the phrase "all things" in the Bible is relative because "all things" that's talked about in the Bible that can do does not include lying, so it can mean "all things" that are logically possible to do, etc, etc.

Fine. This then establishes there's no basis for claiming god to be omnipotent in the first place; the Bible even says he's not. As I just pointed out, if the Christian is going to use the prefix "omni" in an unqualified manner to describe god's other characteristics, it's dishonest to use it in describing his powers without explaining the exceptions; something I have never seen anyone do.

[ChaosBorders]

The Bible doesn't use the word "omnipotence" so it is not biblical in origin so I wouldn't say that adding alternative meanings to the word "omnipotence" is a way to duck any objections for God or the Bible because it's not a biblical word.

It is when people use the other "omni" terms without qualification to describe god's character. As unqualified terms,"omnificence," "omnibenovlence,' "omnipresence," and "omniscience" all establish an unconditional use of "omni." As expressed, there is no notion of "Sort of omnipresence," or "Mostly omniscience," or "Omnibenovlence except for." Therefore, when omnipotence is presented as "omnipotent, but" it becomes a duplictious tactic to get around an insurmountable problem. Understandable considering the stakes, but dishonest none the less.

The Bible also gives an exception to God's power when it mentions it is "impossible" for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). So the phrase "all things" in the Bible is relative because "all things" that's talked about in the Bible that can do does not include lying, so it can mean "all things" that are logically possible to do, etc, etc.

Fine. This then establishes there's no basis for claiming god to be omnipotent in the first place; the Bible even says he's not. As I just pointed out, if the Christian is going to use the prefix "omni" in an unqualified manner to describe god's other characteristics, it's dishonest to use it in describing his powers without explaining the exceptions; something I have never seen anyone do.

If someone is too lazy to look up the definitions of the word, it is not my problem. I can use the word omnipotence in relation to God because by the vast majority of definitions I believe it fits just fine. If the person I say that to asks me to clarify exactly what I mean, I will do so, but doing so unprompted is a waste of my time. It has nothing to do with dishonesty.

[Angel]

The Bible doesn't use the word "omnipotence" so it is not biblical in origin so I wouldn't say that adding alternative meanings to the word "omnipotence" is a way to duck any objections for God or the Bible because it's not a biblical word.

It is when people use the other "omni" terms without qualification to describe god's character. As unqualified terms,"omnificence," "omnibenovlence,' "omnipresence," and "omniscience" all establish an unconditional use of "omni." As expressed, there is no notion of "Sort of omnipresence," or "Mostly omniscience," or "Omnibenovlence except for." Therefore, when omnipotence is presented as "omnipotent, but" it becomes a duplictious tactic to get around an insurmountable problem. Understandable considering the stakes, but dishonest none the less.

Many words have more than one meaning, so it's always best to ask someone to specify what they mean if the context is not obvious.

The Bible also gives an exception to God's power when it mentions it is "impossible" for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). So the phrase "all things" in the Bible is relative because "all things" that's talked about in the Bible that can do does not include lying, so it can mean "all things" that are logically possible to do, etc, etc.

Fine. This then establishes there's no basis for claiming god to be omnipotent in the first place; the Bible even says he's not. As I just pointed out, if the Christian is going to use the prefix "omni" in an unqualified manner to describe god's other characteristics, it's dishonest to use it in describing his powers without explaining the exceptions; something I have never seen anyone do.

There is a basis for mentioning that God is omnipotent if you factor in all the meanings for the word. While you only want to refer to the Greek, you need to also factor in that if you're speaking English, then you need to apply the English meanings as well, as well as all of the philosophical meanings which don't all mention omnipotence as meaning absolute power to do any and everything, even logically impossible things.

Chaosborders and I have been explaining the exceptions (although "alternative meanings" is a better word here) here although the very word omnipotence can mean doing that which is only logically possible so it's not invalid just to mention the word. If you need elaboration then you can of course question further to find out what Christians means.

[Miles]

Many words have more than one meaning, so it's always best to ask someone to specify what they mean if the context is not obvious.

In this case the unqualified use of the other "omni"s has established the context, one that doesn't imply further specification of "omnipotent" is needed.

the very word omnipotence can mean doing that which is only logically possible so it's not invalid just to mention the word.

Not invalid, just dishonest or at least purposely misleading.

[ChaosBorders]

Many words have more than one meaning, so it's always best to ask someone to specify what they mean if the context is not obvious.

In this case the unqualified use of the other "omni"s has established the context, one that doesn't imply further specification of "omnipotent" is needed.

the very word omnipotence can mean doing that which is only logically possible so it's not invalid just to mention the word.

Not invalid, just dishonest or at least purposely misleading.

Given God is clearly not present in the sense of physically inhabiting space, and given the theological problem of evil, neither omnipresence nor omni-benevolence are are unqualified.

Omniscience is really the only one I can think of that doesn't have some sort of qualification. It doesn't mean the others don't fit by definition, just that they don't fit in the way some people try to force them to.

So the fact omnipotence also requires qualification doesn't seem to me to be so out of context as you portray it.

[Miles]

Given God is clearly not present in the sense of physically inhabiting space,

You mean because you can't see him? Ever see all the nitrogen in our atmosphere? It's there in spades, and physically no less. But is that the defining condition of "presence," that it not incorporate a corporeal body? The point being, I've never heard anyone claim that in order for god to be everywhere he MUST have a physical body.

and given the theological problem of evil omni-benevolence are are unqualified.

So what is your definition of omni-benevolence? Is god only sort of good some of the time? God is omni-benevolent except when he's not, or God is omni-benevolent except when _______fill in the blank_______.

[ChaosBorders]

Given God is clearly not present in the sense of physically inhabiting space,

You mean because you can't see him? Ever see all the nitrogen in our atmosphere? It's there in spades, and physically no less. But is that the defining condition of "presence," that it not incorporate a corporeal body? The point being, I've never heard anyone claim that in order for god to be everywhere he MUST have a physical body.

and given the theological problem of evil omni-benevolence are are unqualified.

So what is your definition of omni-benevolence? Is god only sort of good some of the time? God is omni-benevolent except when he's not, or God is omni-benevolent except when _______fill in the blank_______.

And does nitrogen also simultaneously inhabit the exact same space, down to the level of quantum particles, as other objects? Nitrogen is not held to be omnipresent so it doesn't have to, but in theory if a being is truly omnipresent without qualification it should also inhabit the same physical space as everything else.

The lack of a physical body and only having a 'spiritual presence' is the obvious work around, but it's still a qualification. Just because it's a more obvious one to you doesn't make it any less so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent
It is often held that omni-benevolence is impossible because a being of unlimited benevolence who is also omnipotent and omniscient would not allow evil to exist. I view such an argument as just as much a false dichotomy as the one's claiming an omnipotent god can't exist for much the same reasons. But on its face it would seem just as valid as the argument against omnipotence.

Both of these require qualification in much the same manner as omnipotence.

[Miles]

The lack of a physical body and only having a 'spiritual presence' is the obvious work around, but it's still a qualification. Just because it's a more obvious one to you doesn't make it any less so.

A quick turn around here for a moment if you will.
Assuming for sake of argument that "omnipotent" doesn't really mean having absolute power; "omnibenevolence" doesn't really mean having absolute benevolence; "omnipresence" doesn't really mean being absolutely everywhere;" and "omniscience" doesn't really mean knowing absolutely everything ( e.g. Genesis 3:9 "But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"), then what are Christians doing using a term over and over again that denotes an unqualified "all" when this isn't the case at all?

Not appearing in the Bible, I can only assume these "omni" terms were invented to fool the unquestioning believer by imputing more grandeur to god than is warranted. After all, in the war for believers, a religion does well to present its god(s) in the best light possible, even if it means a bit of deceptive advertising. Of course if you've got a better reason explaining why Christians are so fond of using such misleading terms, I'd be happy to listen.

[Angel]

The lack of a physical body and only having a 'spiritual presence' is the obvious work around, but it's still a qualification. Just because it's a more obvious one to you doesn't make it any less so.

A quick turn around here for a moment if you will.
Assuming for sake of argument that "omnipotent" doesn't really mean having absolute power; "omnibenevolence" doesn't really mean having absolute benevolence; "omnipresence" doesn't really mean being absolutely everywhere;" and "omniscience" doesn't really mean knowing absolutely everything ( e.g. Genesis 3:9 "But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"), then what are Christians doing using a term over and over again that denotes an unqualified "all" when this isn't the case at all?

Omnipotence is defined in varying degrees, so it does mean absolute power (including being able to do illogical things) but alternative meanings are usually to a lesser degree like doing all that's "logically possible".

I don't know about less than absolute definitions for omnibenevolence, omnipresence, omniscience etc, unless you can show a biblical basis as to why those omni attributes aren't absolute like I clearly showed for omnipotence. Also show me a source where omnibenevolent, omnipresence, etc are defined in less than absolute terms and why.

Genesis 3:9 just mentions a question. A question is not always asked because of the person asking not knowing what the answer is. Some questions are rhetorical questions that are asked to make a point, and not necessarily to be answered, sorta like how the question, "can God create a rock that He can not lift?" has been taken and how it is seen as rhetorical to show a logical impossibility rather than being a question that can be answered. There are also 3 god beings in the Bible, and while all of them are called "God", they however do not have the same attributes, and only the Father is omniscient, the other 2 are not omniscient nor omnipotent (Matthew 24:36, John 10:29). So which God-being was asking the question in Genesis 3:9 assuming that was a non-rhetorical question?

Not appearing in the Bible, I can only assume these "omni" terms were invented to fool the unquestioning believer by imputing more grandeur to god than is warranted. After all, in the war for believers, a religion does well to present its god(s) in the best light possible, even if it means a bit of deceptive advertising. Of course if you've got a better reason explaining why Christians are so fond of using such misleading terms, I'd be happy to listen.

You have yet to give a valid reason as to why the terms are invalid, which if you can't support then I don't know how you're jumping to them being used as a tool to fool non-believers. God does NOT have to be or have an omni attribute in every way as you seem to assume. The only omni I would claim that the Christian God is would be what the Bible describes Him as, others who are not bible-believers may have their own theories. I don't find contradictory or unreasonable if God was omniscient but not omnibenevolent. I honestly don't care if God is omni-loving or all love, nor do I believe the Bible mentions that He is.