Omnipotence

[om-nip-uh-tuhns]

Omnipotence (Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.

Onmipotence means being able to eat anything without being sick and having all the gods on your side In the philosophy of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is listed as one of God's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Meanings of omnipotence

Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do.
God is able to do anything that God chooses to do.
God is able to do anything that is in accord with His own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of God's nature that what God speaks is truth, then God is not able to lie).
Hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
God is able to do anything that corresponds with his omniscience and therefore with his worldplan

Under many philosophical definitions of the term "God", senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of Omnipotence, it is generally held that God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of his nature, but the principles on which he has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.

Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The statement "God can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by God. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of God performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain. Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction:

Rejection or limitation of omnipotence

Some monotheists reject the view that God is or could be omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create creatures with freewill, God has chosen to limit divine omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some movements within Protestant Christianity, including process theology and open theism, God is said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (for open theism, this is a matter of choice--God could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does so--while for process theism it is a matter of necessity--creatures have inherent powers that God cannot, even in principle, override). God is manifest in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by miracles or violations of the laws of nature.

The rejection of omnipotence often follows from either philosophical or scriptural considerations, discussed below.

Philosophical grounds

Process theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect God.

The idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "Being is power."

From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues further that:

The argument can be stated as follows:

1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency

2) If beings have some active tendency, then they have some power to resist God

3) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power

For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If God's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at last some of their own defenses and agenda.

Thus, if God does not have absolute power, God must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism.

The most popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological system known as process theology.

Scriptural grounds

In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated "...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty" ). Although much of the narrative of the Old Testament describes God as interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally through force. A primary New Testament text used to assert the limit of God's power is Paul's assertion that God cannot tell a lie

Thus, it is argued, there is no scriptural reason to adhere to omnipotence, and the adoption of the doctrine is merely a result of the synthesis of Hellenic and early Christian thought.

Many other verses in the Bible do assert God's omnipotence without actually using the word itself. There are several times in the Bible when God is called simply "Almighty", showing that the Bible supports the belief in an omnipotent God. Some such verses are listed below:

Psalms 33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shadday" )

Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

At his command a storm arose and covered the sea. (Psalm 107:25)

Paradoxes of omnipotence

Belief that God can do absolutely anything can be thought to yield certain logical paradoxes. A simple example goes as follows: Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent. This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature. See liar paradox and Godel's incompleteness theorem. This problem led in the High Middle Ages to developing the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid the basis for infinitesimal calculus. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not God can pose a question to which he would not know the answer.

Augustine, in his City of God, argued that God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent:

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.

Others have argued that (alluding to C.S. Lewis' argument above), that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless.

Another such response is that by defintion an omnipotent being is set free from the grip of what is logically possible. An omnipotent being therfore would not be subject to what is logically possible. In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. A being with knowledge of the concept of omnipotence could then see that omnopotence is by no way limited by logic.

Furthermore arguments in relation to God as a creator have been made that a creator of logic itself would not be subject to its creation and thus again could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it.

Uncertainty and other views

All the above stated claims of power are all based on scriptual grounds and upon empirical human perception. This perception is limited to our senses. The power of God is related to its existence; for more info on the proof on the existence of God and methods see Existence of God.There are however other ways of perception like: reason, intuition, revelation, divine inspiration, religious experience, mystical states, and historical testimony.

According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object.

So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently taking actions, we cannot know the limits of God's powers.

Since the current laws of physics are only known to be valid in this universe, it is possible that the laws of physics are different in parallel universes, giving a God-like entity, more power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since the laws of physics may be different in other universes, and accordingly making this entity omnipotent. Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of empirical correlation. To the extreme there are theories about realms beyond this multiverse (Nirvana, Chaos, Nothingness).

Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by René Descartes He issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy.

It can also be debated that God, assuming there is a God-like entity, is consciously taking actions. It could be concluded from an emanationism point of view, that all actions and creations by God are simply flows of divine energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with qi is often seen as a river; Dharma (Buddhism) the law of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.) Pantheism and/or panentheism sees the universe/multiverse as the body of God, making God everybody and everything. So if one does something, actually God is doing it. We are God's means according to this view.

In the Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is in some ways equivalent to God or the logos. The Tao is understood to have inexhaustible power, yet that power is simply another aspect of its weakness.