Omnipotence

[SteveH]

This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Leaving aside the lack of a logically coherent definition of free will, how does any such thing survive if your god is also omniscient?

[Shaker]

Two initial thoughts:

As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".

This is indeed the straightforward definition of the word. Any tinkering with it is fine, but it's not omnipotence any more.

I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it.

Despite the repeated assertions of one poster in particular here we can't actually state as a fact that humans actually have free will. It's a philosophical issue not amenable to scientific demonstration (as far as we know at present - that may change), but I would go further and state as a fact that contemporary neuroscience at the least casts serious doubt upon it as a viable concept.

[SteveH]

As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).

[Rhiannon]

You can’t square a loving god with omnipotence given the suffering that exists. The only thing that makes sense is to believe that god does what he/she can, but that also means that god doesn’t answer petitional prayers, because to pick and choose who gets help and who doesn’t is also unloving.

[jeremyp]

Two initial thoughts:
This is indeed the straightforward definition of the word. Any tinkering with it is fine, but it's not omnipotence any more.
Despite the repeated assertions of one poster in particular here we can't actually state as a fact that humans actually have free will. It's a philosophical issue not amenable to scientific demonstration, but I would go further and state as a fact that contemporary neuroscience at the least casts serious doubt upon it as a viable concept.

Free will in the classical sense is an impossibility in a deterministic universe since it requires the ability of the human mind to contravene the laws of physics. Even in a non deterministic universe, the problem is not really solved.

[Rhiannon]

Ok, how about this... god doesn’t have a mind or a will, but is just a neutral animating energy. I’m that sense could that be a form of omnipotence?

[Nearly Sane]

As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).

The 'strong' version here seems to be logically incoherent to me. How can a choice be made if not from previous events and/or randomly. Note this has been coveted in great detail on SfG by the admirable torridon.the 'weak' version is not free in any sense I can see and neither of them deal with the issue of omniscience, were it to be attribute of your god.


Unless you envisage your god as an eternal tinkerer reacting to events to keep his 'vast eternal plan' on track, you end up in a Liebnizian position as satirised by Voltaire that this is the best of all possible worlds and could be no different. 

[SteveH]

Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).

What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.

[Nearly Sane]

What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.

Except it obviously isn't. I am sure Johnson was a fabulous drinking companion, but as a thinking companion he's not that far above his namesake Boris.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, how about this... god doesn’t have a mind or a will, but is just a neutral animating energy. I’m that sense could that be a form of omnipotence?

Interesting idea.  In the sense that it could do anything logically possible, even with no actual intent it makes sense. Again we have to drop the omniscient and omnibenevolent ideas here as they imply will. Actually thinking about it an omniscient omnipotent thing could still exist without will but it's a very weird thought.

[Sriram]

This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.

Does omnipotence also include changing the past?

In any case, as far as human thought processes are concerned, the only way someone or something can be omnipotent is if the world is an illusion (something like a Virtual world). The person responsible for the VR can change anything in the virtual world instantaneously by changing the program. 

[Nearly Sane]

Does omnipotence also include changing the past?

In any case, as far as human thought processes are concerned, the only way someone or something can be omnipotent is if the world is an illusion (something like a Virtual world). The person responsible for the VR can change anything in the virtual world instantaneously by changing the program.

Interesting question but surely human perception of the past changes all the time so you could change what is perceived to have happened without changing the actual past. Indeed in terms of fixing code, it's arguable that that is exactly the case.

Don't see that the ability to change the past implies virtuality. It's conceivable that a non virtual world could be changed if you see time as a dimension that you can move in. I believe there is a rather successful TV programme going for ovef 50 years that trades on that.

BTW thanks  to this incarnation of SteveH for the interesting OP

[wigginhall]

As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).

I didn't think that free will = choice, but an act that is unconditioned or without cause.   Hence, when people ask, 'what is free will free from?', the answer seems to be a prior causative event. 

This has led to the debate on the other thread, which involves notions of determinism and randomness.   An act is either determined or random, although 'random' itself is a rather difficult concept.    But anyway, is choice non-determined?  That seems very odd.

By the way, I think sarcasm can be quite adult.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.

Fair enough.

As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".

Yup. Be careful though: “anything that can be done” just means anything that’s amenable to unlimited power – ie, anything at all provided it’s a coherent proposition. “Four-sided triangles” for example couldn’t be done because the notion itself is incoherent whereas, say, curing Uncle Albert of his chronic gout could be whether or not he wanted to be cured.   

I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans,…

“Generally agreed” by whom?

First, the “free” of “free will” is a misnomer.

Second, to be concerned with the limits of “God’s power” presumably you’d have to think there to be a “God” in the first place (and presumably too you’re referring here to the god in which you happen to believe rather than one of the countless other gods in which other people believe).

Either way though, as the concept of a God changing our minds for us is a least a coherent one then no – a god unable to do that would not be omnipotent at all. 

…applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it.

Then “He’s” not omnipotent in any meaningful sense of the word. “Doing anything he likes with matter” is actually a pretty good definition of omnipotence; dilute or limit that and you lose the “omni” necessarily.

This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.

Then more that one person has had the same wrong idea – see above.

Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again)…

It’s go nothing to do with belief or non-belief, just logic.

…it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.

“They” could, but only if they were to share your illogic on the subject.

I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.

That’s not true. You did it when you didn’t want to engage with the argument that undid you, and what “debate” do you think there to be?

[wigginhall]

What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.

As NS commented,  Johnson notoriously got things wrong like this.  For example, his famous refutation of Berkeley 'I kick the stone and refute idealism'; OK, but it didn't.   Similarly, just saying that I 'know' something and that demonstrates it satisfactorily, well, no.  Famous modern example, is the idea that we never actually touch anything, contrary to what we 'know'. 

[ekim]

As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".

Is there anywhere in the Bible where this attribute is used?  Elohim could be loosely translated as 'the powers that be', a quite vague expression.  In the New Testament the Greek word 'dynameon' appears and tends to be associated with strength, ability and possibility.  Jesus said 'with God all is possible' but this was in the context of being saved.

[SteveH]

It was suggested by a mod that I re-post this here, to avoid it getting derailed or hijacked, so here it is.

This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.
Modify message

[Gordon]

Moderator:

The previous thread on this issue in Christian Topic was substantially derailed so we've asked for the OP to be re-posted here.

Members are free to discuss omnipotence freely, including any criticisms of this term and how it is utilised in theism, provided that it is done on the basis of argument and in line with the ethos of this Board. Therefore any 'this is nonsense' posting or derails into other issues (as happened in the other thread) will be removed.

Update: some posts from the original thread have been merged here. 

[Sriram]

Omnipotence is linked to Omniscience and Omnipresence. They go together. We cannot separate them out.

Omniscience and Omnipresence are possible only if the relevant Agent is some sort of an inner driving force. Pantheism!

The idea of the String is unavoidable in this context. The String is postulated to be present in everything, and is said to vibrate and  transform itself  into different elementary particles  and thereby into the whole world.  That is Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence.

Of course the question arises as to what the String is and how it came about and whether there is any Intent and Will behind it.  I don't think we will ever know. We are a product of it and not above it.

[torridon]

The idea of the String is unavoidable in this context. The String is postulated to be present in everything, and is said to vibrate and  transform itself  into different elementary particles  and thereby into the whole world.  That is Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence...

Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.

All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done.  A universe does not know things however.  To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory.  Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.

[ekim]

Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.

All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done.  A universe does not know things however.  To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory.  Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.

I think one of the ideas which occurs in the Perennial Philosophy is that 'knowing' in 'spirituality' is not about objective fact gathering and forming models and concepts etc.  It is about 'being' conscious and its expansion into the 'omni' or 'all' is by losing the notion of selfhood.  The analogy of a raindrop merging or uniting with an ocean and becoming 'oceanic' comes to mind.  The rain drop 'knows' the ocean by becoming one with it not by observing it from an isolated position and conceptualising about it.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

I've removed some posts that are outwith the ethos of this Board.

Please note that members are free to debate Omnipotence in this thread provided that they don't stray outwith the ethos of this (see About This Board).

[Sriram]

Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.

All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done.  A universe does not know things however.  To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory.  Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.

What is Pseudo about String theory?

I was only pointing out that the idea of Omnipresence and Omnipotence is inherent in the String theory. 

[SteveH]

Except it obviously isn't. I am sure Johnson was a fabulous drinking companion, but as a thinking companion he's not that far above his namesake Boris.

I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.