Changes

'''Omnipotence''' is the ability to do absolutely anything. It is usually ascribed to [[God]]

'''Omnipotence''' is unlimited power.

[[God]] is described as being omnipotent.

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be 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 the 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. In this way it can be argued that true omnipotent is logically impossible.

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be 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.

A common counter is that [[God]] can do anything within His nature; it is not in [[God]]'s nature to create such a rock, so He would not do so. However, this is a contradiction of the definition of omnipotence.

The problem with the argument is that it is a nonsense request, akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree.

There simply is no such thing.

A further problem with the naive notion of omnipotence is that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good and wholly powerful. Many souls have been misled by the pernicious doctrine that states that an all-loving God could not be responsible for suffering in the world. This is, of course, a denial of the doctrine of sin, which holds that we are each - individually and collectively - held responsible by God for the suffering that comes upon us - whether or not we can actually understand why we are responsible. Of course, the fact that we are responsible entails that God is not. How can this be reconciled with omnipotence? The clear answer is that God's powers are virtual powers (pouissance) not actual powers (pouvoir): God could in theory do anything but the fact that he does not do anything particular does not disprove that he could not have done it. God, while all-loving and omnipotent, is not obliged to do whatever would benefit any specific part of creation, but rather to "love the individual as part of the collective" - suffering, no matter how great on the mortal scale - is always inconsequential compared to the realization of God's plan.

God is also not capable of doing anthing which is against His nature.

 

Skeptics further argue that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good (benevolent) and wholly powerful.

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.

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.

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]]