Changes

'''Omnipotence''' refers to an agent which is [[axiom|axiomatically]] over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have ''unlimited power'', or, '''omnipotence'''. This abstraction, called the ''concept of omnipotence'', is a concept that we draw by ''contrast''<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review,  Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79  

'''Omnipotence''' refers to an agent which is [[axiom]]atically over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have ''unlimited power'', or, '''omnipotence'''. This abstraction, called the ''concept of omnipotence'', is a concept that we draw by ''contrast''<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review,  Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79  

</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of ''every kind'' of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [http://www.tcnn.org/index_files/abenomnipotence.html]</ref>

</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of ''every kind'' of power <ref>[http://www.tcnn.org/index_files/abenomnipotence.html Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben]</ref>

[[God]] is described as being omnipotent <ref>Revelation 19:6, [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=19&t=KJV#comm/6]</ref>.

[[God]] is described as being omnipotent.<ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=19&t=KJV#comm/6 Revelation 19:6]</ref>

== Coherence vs. incoherence of omnipotence ==

== Coherence vs. incoherence of omnipotence ==

Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is ''immediately'' coherent.

Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is ''immediately'' coherent.

The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even ''can'' get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation 'remedied'. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "''rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent''".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Modern_S10/Handouts/Mavrodes.pdf]</ref>

The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even ''can'' get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation 'remedied'. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "''rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent''".<ref>[http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Modern_S10/Handouts/Mavrodes.pdf Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes]</ref>

== The Paradox of the Stone ==

== The Paradox of the Stone ==

The only reason it is possible to come up with questions that seem to show that omnipotence is a paradoxical concept is by drawing from certain kinds of facts about limited powers. A human has limited powers, yet a human has the power to smash her own hand to bits with a hammer that she has the power to make. Clearly, this does not mean that her hand has the power to be smashed to bits; rather, it means that the things that make up her hand are limited in their power to hold themselves together. Only God is coherent no matter what other powers are applied to Him. And, only God is able to think straight no matter what facts anyone thinks can be applied to Him.

The only reason it is possible to come up with questions that seem to show that omnipotence is a paradoxical concept is by drawing from certain kinds of facts about limited powers. A human has limited powers, yet a human has the power to smash her own hand to bits with a hammer that she has the power to make. Clearly, this does not mean that her hand has the power to be smashed to bits; rather, it means that the things that make up her hand are limited in their power to hold themselves together. Only God is coherent no matter what other powers are applied to Him. And, only God is able to think straight no matter what facts anyone thinks can be applied to Him.

According to most atheists, omnipotence is nonsense. But, if omnipotence were ''pure'' nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox: Pure nonsense has no meaning whatever, such as any nonsense word that does not include sensible words (sgfdpfkp). So, there must be some sense to omnipotence to begin with. Furthermore, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but, to them, incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2265.00152/abstract] Reconsidering Absolute Omnipotence, by Louis Groarke </ref><ref>Omnipotence Paradox: Overview; Wikipedia article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Overview]</ref>. Some atheists admit that omnipotence is coherent, though they reject the idea that it can apply to a sentient agent.

According to most atheists, omnipotence is nonsense. But, if omnipotence were ''pure'' nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox: Pure nonsense has no meaning whatever, such as any nonsense word that does not include sensible words (sgfdpfkp). So, there must be some sense to omnipotence to begin with. Furthermore, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but, to them, incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2265.00152/abstract] Reconsidering Absolute Omnipotence, by Louis Groarke</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Overview Omnipotence Paradox: Overview; Wikipedia article]</ref> Some atheists admit that omnipotence is coherent, though they reject the idea that it can apply to a sentient agent.

== The omnipotence of God ==

== The omnipotence of God ==

However, this argument presumes that God would see the elimination of suffering as the benevolent thing to do. God has provided man with the gift of [[free will]], but if God prevented all bad consequences resulting from our decisions, then He would be overriding our free will.

However, this argument presumes that God would see the elimination of suffering as the benevolent thing to do. God has provided man with the gift of [[free will]], but if God prevented all bad consequences resulting from our decisions, then He would be overriding our free will.

[[category:theology]]

[[Category:Theology]]

==See Also==

==See also==

*[[Omnipresence]]

*[[Omnipresence]]

*[[Omniscience]]

*[[Omniscience]]

==Further Reading==

==Further reading==

[[Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power]]

[[Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power]]