Talk:Omnipotence/Archive 2

'Absolute power <-> Absolute potential' removed
I've removed the 'Absolute power <-> Absolute potential' section. Sorry Teardrop, but that whole section was just your personal thoughts on the subject with no citation.

I'm not going to discuss this endlesly, since I'm growing tired of that. There are indeed no references, but now the article is completely unbalanced in a POV that god is not omnipotent. Do you need a reference to know we do not know what god does or doesn't. Even if god would not excist we wouldn't know it... + The possibility that god's body is the universe was referenced to the specified article on wikipedia Pantheism and/or panentheism There are also no claims of certain correctness, since all info is written in the "if" tense.

I do think a synopsis is valuable, maybe not in the form that I wrote it. But please consider not to erase it completely. De article in short now states what omnipotence is and then continues to try and unforce all claims of omnipotence on the grounds of logic. But being omnipotent would mean god is above logic (also unreferenced). Anyway you look at it, the article is now very unbalanced. Teardrop onthefire 11:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any comment on this please Teardrop onthefire 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For God to be above logic, or vice versa, logic would have to be a thing in, and of, itself (its own, and exclusive, set). That is, logic would have to be an actual thing. But, logic is not an actual thing. Just like presence, or existence, or quantity, are not actual things, but are abstractions from, or observations about, actual things. Numbers don't exist prior to things, else numbers would be more concrete (Platonically) even than things that exist necessarily (such as, in the view of some, logic as including both general logical necessity {2+2=4} and the necessary existence which is mutually implied with aseity). Logic ultimately is the name we give to our sense, or observation, that there must be some things that exist necessarily (though we may not know, or even be able ever to know, what things those are). Such a sense, such an observation, neither creates nor observes a thing which, though entirely abstract (or Platonic), nevertheless is presupposed, at least in effect, by the 'God vs. Logic' POV, to be more concrete than a tree, much less than any supposed creator of a tree.

Why is the subject of omnipotence so controversial? The subject of omnibenevolence, by comparison, is nearly never seen as inherently presenting conceptual problems or paradoxes.

For the human faculty of rational thought, there is, typically, a ‘parity interference’ between a notion of omnibenevolence and a notion of omnipotence. We think of omnibenevolence immediately and simply in terms of love, but we so easily think of omnipotence as a notion which is in a state of inherent tension with logic. Anti-qualified power (‘absolute power’) is formally asymmetric to what typically seems to be the intuitive truth of omnibenevolence, yet there is no formal exemption for omnibenevolence. One can imagine omnibenevolence as ‘all’ inclusive in a similar way that omnipotence is often imagined to require. A theoretical omnibenevolent being can be imagined to love both foolishness and wisdom, and to see nothing less to love in the torments of injustice than it naturally would see in the reliefs brought on by kindness.

Power may generally be defined as the ability to bring about a change in state-of-affairs: for a given state of affairs, a congruent power can change it into a different state of affairs. But, if this is what power essentially is, then benevolence is, itself, a kind of power. And, between malevolence and benevolence (or, between imposition and freedom), one easily may suppose that the latter is the greater power. This all begs the question as to what is motive by which we typically conceive of omnipotence as a singular and insensible kind of power (such that omnipotence may, or, by some accounts, must, disregard any and all rational consistency? May not omnipotence, instead, be that Ideal Power which is comprised of all sensible powers and to infinite degree?

By the rules of formal logic, the following two syllogisms are valid.

1. A bird has the power to pick worms out of things. Math problems are things. Therefore, a bird has the power to pick worms out of math problems.

2. A tornado has the power to throw things up into other things. 2+2 is a thing, and 5 is another thing. Therefore, a tornado has the power to throw 2+2 up into 5.

The implicit initial error at first seems to be in abstracting the nature, or definition, of power, of which we do have empirical knowledge (see the intuitive absurdity of 1. and 2.): agency. And, of course, it then is seen that this abstraction called 'agency' is not the actual, singular, essence of power, else any kind of agent would have every kind of power over every kind of thing (see 1. and 2). And, if omnipotence is itself abstracted from this first abstraction, then it naturally will appear to us that an omnipotent being must be pictured much like a feeble man on a speed bike, who must not dare to put the contraption to the test lest he suddenly be treated to the famous 'all-you-can-eat asphalt buffet'.

It certainly is possible to attempt to define the principle object (say, an elephant) by a process of binary elimination (a huge, flappy ear is not an elephant), but such an attempt necessarily fails to ‘identify with’ any empirically testable dimension of the principle object. The result of such an 'investigation' is logically necessary only within the terms of the investigation. So, again, this begs the question of why, by what motive, such a tack is taken in the first place? Such a question is one of history, in terms both of one's own person and of a past (and otherwise surrounding) humanity. And, while the purely human answer to the question has a pessimistic ring, namely that the human experience begs for a satisfaction which is not, in itself, guaranteed, the other logically possible answer is surprising in every dimension: love is an agent, and by no means a feeble one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatternOfPersona (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Under the "Uncertainty and other Views" section, it might be fruitful to add something additionally about omnipotence being other than or beyond logic and reason. For instance, if omnipotence is unknowable, how would we know it was unknowable? The way I see such assertions is totally nonsense, meaning "makes no sense," since what they try to do is go beyond any type of obtainable knowledge, while at the same time, asserting that omnipotence means goes "beyond all logic or obtainable knowledge." Anything we assert is definitively not beyond logic or reason simply because to think anything necessitates logic and reason. Therefore, to assert X goes beyond logic and reason is assert nothing at all. In other words, the assertion itself is contradictory because what it tries to assert relies on what it denies (logic/reason). Dwdallam (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotence Also Literary
Just thought I would point out that as titled, this wiki doesn't seem specific enough, as Omnipotence can also be attributed as a literary perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheistic Views of Omnipotence
I realize some may see this as kind of a stretch, however I find that this perspective belongs on this wiki. Simply put, it is the belief that existence [as a whole] is obviously 'all powerful'.
 * What is Atheistic Omnipotence?

One can easily understand that the known universe contains all known sources of energy. It is also easy to understand that, the universe is comprised of countless unique individuals. Whether alive or not, the composition of existence is variable. However, we are all contained within the same space & it is absolute freedom which gives [holistic existence] omnipotence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably vandalized?
About 2/3rd way down a certain "TF" has injected a massive, unformatted paragraph of rant about some "big bang" related theory. Looks like junk. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we just erase this? It was a huge WTF moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.8.243 (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done
 * --118.209.249.126 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

POV paragraph
Concerning this paragraph:
 * Within the Biblical context, God is almighty (not omnipotent) because there is no other entity that can thwart Him in whatever he decides to do. Therefore, the proper questions relative to God's power, would be: (1) Can any other entity (or alleged deity) create a rock too heavy for God to lift and (2) Can God create a rock too heavy for any other entity (or deity) to lift? The answers are no and yes. Thus, no other entity (or deity) can exert any power over God and claim to be more powerful than God.

This paragraph is an interesting response to the Omnipotence Paradox, however it is entirely POV and completely uncited. When adding something to a Wikipedia article, one should consider 'does this belong in an encyclopedia?' and 'have I just written my opinion instead of something supportable by evidence?' and in this case the answers are no and yes. --118.209.249.126 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; original research is the problem here, it's enough that we already mention the paradox. --McGeddon (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Other omnipotent beings
Except for the mention of Star Trek's Q and the like, there seems not to be any material around here about omnipotence applied to beings other than God. In fact, the article could be called "Omnipotence of God". I'd like to include a list of fictional omnipotent or quasi-omnipotent beings (such as Q), but I'd like some feedback regarding organization of the page, and ideas to include. Is there a list of fictional creatures anywhere? --Pablo D. Flores 10:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, then you run the risk of offending religious sensibilities by including fictitious representations of omnipotence alongside conceptual elements dissecting the fundamental existence of God.

That's not to discourage you from creatively altering this page; I would, however, include a caveat as a title to separate (and keep NPOV) your personal assessments regarding God as either a fictitious / non-fictitious entity.

Edit away! 24.208.54.114 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking about this. Maybe a new section on the page called "In media" or something like that. 71.197.172.107 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotent cowardice
An omnipotent being must, by definition, be a coward. A coward has no courage. Courage is action in the face of fear, but since an omnipotent being cannot rationally fear anything it is condemned to an eternity of cowardice. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Omnipotent Beings
Many religions proclaim the existence of one or more omnipotent beings. However, Jehovah's Witnesses point out that God could not be omnipotent. In fact that omnipotence is a senseless concept:


 * There should be a pop culture section that references omnipotent beings, such as Q from StarTrek or Rose Tyler (end of Dr Who Season 1, temporarily) Indeed, there are not many because writing an interesting story line with a charecter who has no vulnerabilities or bounderies is difficult.


 * I am not aware of any religion that proclaims the existence of more than one omnipotent being. RK


 * Star Trek (all the Q)  ;-) -anon


 * It's implied by Mormonism, RK.  &mdash;B|Talk

It is clear that a human could make a hammer that can be used for beating nails into wood, but not for beating another human. But if the hammer is supposed to be made of natural materials, God could not do it either! It is inherently not possible to fulfill contradicting conditions.(although it is argued by some Christians that trying to fit god into the reality of our universe, which they believe he created, so that Jehovah doesn't fit into our reality. Also some argue with the fact whether or not he would do it in the first place.)


 * Jehovah's witnesses teach that a human cannot use a hammer to beat another human? Do they read police reports? This can't be some one's idea of theology, can it?! RK


 * I used a double negation and the sentence may not be correct English, so you could have corrected my English instead of claiming that I made such an absurd statement!


 * Please show me this double negation. I saw none.  The sentence made perfect grammatical sense and absolutely no theological sense

In the same way, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, it is not possible for God to create a human that is programmed to be obedient and at the same time is capable of being creative. Creativity requires by definition a will of one's own.

If I can speak for Jehovah's Witnesses here, it would have been perfectly possible for God to create a human that is programmed to be obedient. However, clearly God CHOSE NOT TO do so. The fact that He is omnipotent doesn't mean that he HAS TO DO everything all the time. A world-champion weightlifter doesn't lift every heavy object he sees, just because he can. He lifts a heavy object when it is in line with his will - practicing or competing at weightlifting for example.

I'd say the thing in that article that Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with is that Jesus was not God made flesh and therefore was not omnipotent.


 * If an entry is needed on this topic, shouldn't it start with the material on "omnipotence" already found in the entry on God and the related entries on religious philosophy? RK

This is foolish. You dont understand the true meaning of omnipotence. An omnipotent being can do anything, his thoughts, acations and decisions are what form reality (or our perseption of it). For example if an omnipotent god said "Pigs can fly." through his unlimited power pigs would fly because he said they could, there is no falsehood in an omnipotent being, what it sais is what is, no matter how complex it seems to us. Also, with your argument against an omnipotent God, what you basicly said is that an omni potent God cant do the impossible. That is a huge contradiction, you come out sounding like an idiot. Your (and everyone's) grasp of God's limitless power is like a four year old trying to understand physics. thats because you forget that it is impossibe to understand omnipotence without omniscience.


 * To return to the original point of this discussion, there is indeed no reason in logic or theology why there couldn't be multiple omnipotent beings, all of whom already know that they will not interfere in each others activities and operations. The boundary lines may get wuzzy, tho. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Paradox
Omnipotence seems to be a paradox as does the existence of God and space. Space is infinite in vastness, meaning there is no edge to space and there is no way to escape space in the physical dimension, for if there was an edge to space then one must ask them self "What is beyond this edge of space?" To say nothing is beyond this edge of space would be a chaotic statement as "nothing" cannot exist, otherwise it would be "something" And besides, if in theory there was the existence of nothing it would by nature be infinite itself as nothing cannot have a boundary. Either it would consume existence or existence would nullify nothingness making it again not exist and making the universe infinite in vastness still. (which statement is more chaotic, to say there is a boundary to space or to say there is not?) God created space to be infinite in vastness, God also created Heaven and Hell which are also both infinite in vastness.. this is what I mean by God being a paradox, who can imagine one infinite let alone imagine several infinities? This is also why many have trouble understanding the paradox of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost.. One God, Three divine persons) But this would all be very simple to an omnipotent being who has created the mere idea of logic, who has created the idea of infinity and who has created all the boundaries and limits of all things in nature, science, time and all that which transcends. There is a saying which tests this paradox of the Omnipotent of God "Could God create a rock so large that even He could not lift it?" The answer in my understanding is a pure and simple Yes! If God wanted to create a rock so large that He could not lift it, then He would only need to become a human and try to lift a boulder as a human, if He then wanted to lift it He could as God. Davethewave 07:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above paragraph is total nonsense. It has no meaning.  Saying "God is a paradox" is equivalent to saying "God cannot exist" and I don't think that was your intent.  In addition, claiming that infinity cannot be understood is a vague statement at best, and even if true it still wouldn't be an argument for the existence or omnipotence of a god.  Lastly, you clearly didn't understand the God/rock argument so let me try to help.  If you claim the answer is yes, then God has a limit, if the answer is no, then God also has a limit.  Therefore God, or any being for that matter, must have limits of some kind.  Saying he could choose to not be able to lift the rock implies that he could choose to be able to lift it, and therefore one can simply conclude that he is capable of that act. (Matt, Feb. 23, 2006)


 * Oh it has a meaning! However, it bothers that it is a contradiction, and I use to reject contradictions, and so also this one. Cf. bubkes. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If God chooses to become human as to make it so he cannot lift the rock, then its not that he cannot lift the rock, its that he is choosing not to. If someone tells me, "you can count to ten on your fingers without counting a single finger twice", then I chop off a finger, I am choosing not to count to ten under those conditions. Seeing as God can at any moment just lift the rock cause he is omnipotent, then by limiting himself he is choosing not to. Oddly enough just by making himself human doesnt mean he still couldnt life the rock, see if he made himself human to prove he couldnt life the rock, possibly by your understanding of removing his omnipotentness (?) then he wouldnt be God anymore and still wouldnt fill the requirement of rock so heavy even he could not lift it, cause he isnt himself anymore. However if you are arguing that he keeps him omnipotentness(?) but changes into human form, then what makes you think he still cant lift it considering he is still omnipotent. --Zer0faults 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesn't address the paradox. An agent is omnipotent insofar as she can enact any state of affairs S. God choosing to not be able to lift a rock is total nonsense. "Not able to" enact S means that an agent cannot enact S. If the agent is merely choosing not to be able to enact S, then she still can do so, namely, it is within her power. So the question is not whether or not God can explore his own choices, but whether or not he can explore this particular choice, which involves the negation of, not the temporary resistence to, a state of affairs S. Dextris Dei 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only Omnipotent Monotheist God is Chist. He is the God who could "create a rock he can not lift". The God of Old Testament or Quran is not omnipotent, not the creator of all, but distant irrelevant weak abstraction with no real meaningful place in the world.

God created the world, man and then God created himself as a man: a mortal man, weak man, unable to bend the world to his will, defend anyone, but suffer a painful beggars torture and death. That is omnipotence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.209.179 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrates that a system can never be fully proved within itself. So, a being which believes itself to be omnipotent can never know for sure that it is not itself simply a construct of an even greater being which. Hidden, lends the lesser being a false experience of being omnipotent. But since no being can have the power to answer this quandary with certainty, no being can be actually omnipotent. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)