Omnipotence
From Free net encyclopedia
Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.
In most monotheistic religions, God is described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
Contents |
Meanings of omnipotence
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include:
- God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but God can also transcend logic (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations.
- God can intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability (i. e., God can create miracles), but it is impossible (and in fact meaningless) to suggest that God can rewrite the laws of logic.
- God originally could intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics (miracles), and did do so when creating the universe, but then he self-obligated himself not to do so anymore in order to give humankind free will. Miracles are rare, at best, and always hidden, to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by absolute knowledge of God's existence, which could remove free will.
- Omnipotence is sharply limited by neo-Aristotelian philosophers, who independently arose in Judaism, Christianity and Islam during the medieval era, and whose views still are considered normative among the intellectual elite of these faith communities even today. In this view, God never interrupts the set laws of nature; once set, they are never repealed, for God never changes his mind. These philosophers envisioned a connection between the realm of the physical and the intellectual. All physical events are held to be the results of "intellects", some of which are human, some of which are "angels". These intellects can interact in such a way as to seemingly violate the laws of nature. Since God himself created the universe and the laws therein, this is how God works in the world. However, God does not actively intervene in a temporal sense. It has been noted that this view veers away from traditional theism, and moves towards deism. To say that this is "considered normative among the intellectual elite of these faith communities" is patently false. If professional philosophers who consider themselves Christian can be considered a significant part of the "intellectual elite", then I can list a large number of positions that differ from these. Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most decorated analytic Christian philosopher, has made claims contradicting these, in which he states that he believes in miracles as literal violations of laws of nature. (see his Profiles series book). Bas C. vanFraasen is a Catholic, and a prominent philosopher of science. He does not even believe in laws of nature. William Lane Craig and JP Moreland are perhaps the most decorated evangelicals doing philosophy today. They both believe in miracles, as seen at their LeaderU pages. Thomas P. Flint and Alfred Freddoso, of Notre Dame, have coauthored an article named "Maximal Power" in which they provide a very strict definition of omnipotence (perhaps rather than definition I should say conception) that definitely allows the violation of laws of nature, if in fact there are such things (this paper, unlike the works by Plantinga, Craig, and Moreland does not presuppose laws.).
- God's omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physics or logic; rather his omnipotence is measured by his mastery of these laws to which he himself is also subject. God is omnipotent in that he has reached the full potential of his species (mankind) and is as powerful as his species can be. What may appear as a miracle to a mere mortal is simply an example of God's perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and his consequent ability to make use of that omniscience. This position is implied by Mormonism and avoids paradoxes created by a strong literal meaning imputed to the trait of omnipotence by most monotheistic religions. See essential omnipotence.
- God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power. The nature of God includes logic, and thus God cannot do anything which is logically absurd. God is able to alter the laws of physics since they are not part of his nature (strictly speaking, though they may be reflective of it), they are only a means to an end. Tertullian summarized this view as follows: "In one sense there will be something difficult even for God — namely, that which He has not done — not because He could not [in terms of raw power], but because He would not [in terms of self-consistency], do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability".
Scholastic definition
No less a philosopher than Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) acknowledged difficulty in comprehending God's power. Thomas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnopotent...it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists." Some people believe that any limitations, logical or otherwise, upon the power of God seriouslyundermine the historic Christian belief that God is omnipotent. This explains why many people think that divine omnipotence means God can do absolutely anything. But if there is anything to be learned from the classical Christian discussions of omnipotence, it is that omnipotence was always understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power. There are certain things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of God. The standard scholastic answer suggested that such creaturely acts did not mean that humans possessed powers not possesses by God. Rather, human acts such as walking and sitting were possible because of a defect in human power. The ability to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or an infimity. The ability to walk results from having a body-in their view, also a defect. As the discussion came to qualify the statement "God can do anything" by adding "that implies the perfection of true power" As Aquinas phrased it, "God is said to be omnipotent in respect to active power, not to passive power." Template:Unreferenced
This section must be rephrased. It is plagiarized from Life’s Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash (Zondervan, 1999) pages 306-307.
Rejection of omnipotence
Some monotheists reject altogether the view that God is omnipotent. In Unitarian Universalism, much of Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some wings of Protestant Christianity including process theology and open theism, God is said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion. God makes himself manifest in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, but not by miracles or violations of the laws of nature.
The rejection of omnipotence generally stems from philosophical or scriptural grounds, or some combination of both.
Philosophical grounds: process theology
Process theology rejects omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect God.
The idea is grounded in Plato's often overlooked statement that "Being is power."
- "I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, tho it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things: that they are nothing but power." (Plato, Sophist 247E).
From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argued further that:
- "Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted by absolute?" (Hartshorne 89)
The argument can be stated as follows:
- 1) God exists
- 2) God is perfect
- 3) Existence is power,
- 4) Since existence is power, all beings in the universe must have power.
- 5) If all beings have some power, then they have some power to resist God.
- 6) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power, but there is free will which God allows.
In essence, if God has absolute power, then he has no power at all. God must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism.
The most popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also developed by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by Charles Hartshorne, within the context of the theological system known as process theology.
Scriptural grounds
Some branches of Conservative and Reform Judaism, as well as Open Theism, reject omnipotence on doctrinal grounds. They note that the word "omnipotence" is absent entirely from the Hebrew Bible, even though the word Almighty is used, and appears only once in the Christian New Testatement, in Revelation, even though the various gospels makle references of God's infinite power. They note that much of the narrative of the Old Testament describes God as having limited power and interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally through brute force. Thus, it is argued, there is no scriptural reason to adhere to omnipotence, and the adoption of the doctrine is simply a result of the synthesis of Hellenic and early Christian thought.
Paradoxes of omnipotence
Belief that God can do absolutely anything can lead to certain logical paradoxes (which some argue are not problematic, if God transcends the laws of logic). A simple example, described in more detail under omnipotence paradox, is typically phrased as follows: can God create a banana cream pie so large that even he could not eat it? This problem led in the High Middle Ages into invention of the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid basis on infinitesimal calculus.
Combining omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox (which is not scriptural, but merely philosophical), one might ask whether God can pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer.
References
Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God, p. 89.