Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
568
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + − The controversies concerning how to understand or define omnipotence are resolvable in terms of the respective [[ontology|ontologies]] of power, all-ness, and logic.<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Modern_S10/Handouts/Mavrodes.pdf]</ref>+ Line 15:
Line 29: − + − + − + − The argument is that if God is both benevolent and capable of putting an end to suffering, then He would put an end to suffering. − − + −
no edit summary
''Omnipotent'' refers to an agent which is 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 comparison to limited powers (limited agents).
''Omnipotent'' 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 comparison to limited powers (limited agents).
[[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>.
== 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.
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>
== Limited powers ==
A limited power is a collection of other powers which lack an unlimited power to remain held together. A human hand holds itself together in a good way unless some other power causes the hand to break internally or to become separated into a number of parts. That same hand, combined with the brain to which it is connected, has the power to make a hammer. But, since the hand already is not all-powerful, then the hammer, when applied to the hand, is more powerful in some ways than the hand. Only an unlimited power can hold itself together, or remain coherent, no matter what other powers are applied.
A limited power is a collection of other powers which lack an unlimited power to remain held together. A human hand holds itself together in a good way unless some other power causes the hand to break internally or to become separated into a number of parts. That same hand, combined with the brain to which it is connected, has the power to make a hammer. But, since the hand already is not all-powerful, then the hammer, when applied to the hand, is more powerful in some ways than the hand. Only an unlimited power can hold itself together, or remain coherent, no matter what other powers are applied.
[[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>.
== The central components of the debate ==
The controversies concerning how to understand or define omnipotence in regard to the nature of its relations to other thing are all resolvable in terms of the respective [[ontology|ontologies]] of [[power]], all-ness, and [[logic]]. Since the concept of omnipotence is coherent prior to any task, any task which does not abide the concept is precluded by the concept. Of course, some tasks, as such, are difficult to understand, while others are difficult to rightly understand in the first place.
== Details of the debate ==
Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be construed as self-contradictory. For example, suppose an omnipotent God were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truly omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent.
Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be construed as self-contradictory. For example, suppose an omnipotent God were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truly omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent.
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>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.
The concept of omnipotence is coherent prior to any task. Therefore, any task which does not abide the concept is precluded by the concept. Of course, some tasks, as such, are difficult to understand, while others are difficult to rightly understand in the first place; But, this does not impact on the coherence of the concept of omnipotence.
== The omnipotence of God ==
God is also not capable of doing anything which is against His nature.
God is not capable of doing anything which is against His nature.
For example, as God is by definition truth, then He cannot lie.
For example, as God is by definition truth, then He cannot lie.
Skeptics further [[problem of evil|argue]] that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good (benevolent) and wholly powerful.
Skeptics [[problem of evil|argue]] that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good (benevolent) and wholly powerful. This argument states that "if God is both benevolent and capable of putting an end to suffering, then He would put an end to suffering; As suffering still exists, God must not be omnipotent or must not be benevolent."
As suffering still exists, God must not be omnipotent or must not be benevolent.
However, this argument presumes that God would see the elimination of suffering as the benevolent thing to do.
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.
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]]