On the Omnipotent God
Jul. 17th, 2012 08:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
terranaToday's Futility Closet contained a quote that expresses a sentiment that I often come across:
Honestly, this is rubbish.
People making arguments like this, in my view, are missing the idea of true omnipotence. Let us define it here, then: omnipotence, n., the capability to do literally anything without restriction or limitation.
I have rephrased the definition to make my point, but the idea remains the same no matter which way you slice it: without limitation. Take a moment to think about exactly what that means. In stating that an omnipotent god (or, as above, one who is both omnipotent or omniscient) is logically impossible, we are imposing a limitation on it. A being with truly unlimited power cannot, by definition, be fettered by the rule of logic. Indeed, such a being could do something with is logically self-contradictory - a paradox - and yet still have this be logically consistent; to say such a thing is impossible is to implicitly deny omnipotence. I could go on, and will if anyone asks me to, but I believe I have made my point.
In closing, I would like to state for the record that I am an atheist, and that I do not see any reason to believe such a being exists. But as the original quote demonstrates, it is far too easy to become complacent in such a view. We must constantly re-evaluate our ideas, or we risk falling prey to the same problem of unchanging dogma that is often seen as the failing of the religious.
An omnipotent god can create a being that performs an act known only to itself.This is a variation on the old argument that an omnipotent god could create something that is impossible even for said god, and is therefore itself impossible.
An omniscient god cannot do this.
It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.
(From Richard R. La Croix.)
Honestly, this is rubbish.
People making arguments like this, in my view, are missing the idea of true omnipotence. Let us define it here, then: omnipotence, n., the capability to do literally anything without restriction or limitation.
I have rephrased the definition to make my point, but the idea remains the same no matter which way you slice it: without limitation. Take a moment to think about exactly what that means. In stating that an omnipotent god (or, as above, one who is both omnipotent or omniscient) is logically impossible, we are imposing a limitation on it. A being with truly unlimited power cannot, by definition, be fettered by the rule of logic. Indeed, such a being could do something with is logically self-contradictory - a paradox - and yet still have this be logically consistent; to say such a thing is impossible is to implicitly deny omnipotence. I could go on, and will if anyone asks me to, but I believe I have made my point.
In closing, I would like to state for the record that I am an atheist, and that I do not see any reason to believe such a being exists. But as the original quote demonstrates, it is far too easy to become complacent in such a view. We must constantly re-evaluate our ideas, or we risk falling prey to the same problem of unchanging dogma that is often seen as the failing of the religious.
