Talk:Omnipotence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Formatting

This is a minor pet peeve, but I have made a change in the past that moved item five out of the enumerated list into a separate paragraph, and someone keeps putting it back into the list. The first four items describe four different ways that describe what one means when says that God is omnipotent; the last item describes a non-omnipotent conception of God. It does not belong in the list! It should be separated out, in a different paragraph or otherwise not associated with the other four items. This is especially the case because the list is preceded with an introductory sentence that specifically says that it is a list of the different ways that one can conceive of omnipotence. The rejection of a doctrine of omnipotence is not an example of what one means when one says that God is omnipotent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

New POV problem

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omnipotence&curid=22776&diff=0&oldid=12236467

Both sides of this revision are with a POV, and the newest revision has poor grammar. Can it be changed, anyone? Edit: (Same user) this revision actually is not only gramatically problematic, but makes no real sense at all. Eggh. I fear changing it back, as the person may fight over it. 24.76.141.220 02:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm just a timid non-registered person. I've made the change, shoot me (or revert it) if you choose, but I think I did the best I could to kill both biases. The user is making a change to the Omnipotence Paradox page though, so that may have to be watched. 24.76.141.220 03:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies in the logic behind the question. If you use two conflicting but equally accurate arguments, you are bound to run into a circular loop of nonsense. Or something like that. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.2.137 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright warning moved from article

I've moved the following from the Scholastic definition section in the article:

This section must be rephrased. It is plagiarized from Life’s Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash (Zondervan, 1999) pages 306-307.

It was placed there by Jjhake (talk, contribs) on 1 April 2006. - dcljr (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

I have made several significant alterations to the article which I think satisfactorily remove any POV problems, and deal with others along the way.

• I have removed the third opening line "Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles." It is far too generic, and as such ignores all kinds of theistic systems, whether lacking in miracles, pantheistic, etc.
• I have also removed the following:

"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."

This passage has nothing to do with the nature of omnipotence; rather it makes a statement about theological history, which is inappropriate for the article.

The next "position" was deleted for the same reason. A group of people having an influence on theology is not itself a position on omnipotence, transparently.

• I have removed this line:

"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."

It appears to be a shout-out to Mormonism, lacking both explanation and source. The Wikipedia article on Omnipotence ought not be evanglical in nature...

• I have adjusted the section on scholaticism, adding both an actual source and a modern reference. I'm not sure how appropriate the Lewis quote is, although it is a clear articulation of the view, and shows the relevance of scholasticism in modern apologetics. However, perhaps the reference to Lewis ought to be moved elsewhere.
• If I am not mistaken, the claim that "If God has absolute power, then he has no power at all" does not follow from the logical argument presented. Someone should clarify it. Or, if I am right about its failure, delete it.
• Under the "paradoxes" section, I suggest that someone find a source for the very significant claim that concerns about omnipotence yielded the concepts of infinity as well as laid the foundation for infinitesimal calculus.
• Since the article is somewhat lacking in substantive critique, I added a reference to the main article on Omnipotence paradox, as well as a critical external link.
• I also made several minor grammatical corrections.

Dextris Dei 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article too Unbalanced

The article should also provide spirtual and other reasons for the belief of Omnipotence. I just find this article to be too one sided or bias. --

...elaborate more, please. Your opinions surely cannot be summarized in a two-sentence statement...

24.208.54.114 05:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced. The article only has arguments against omnipotence. I tried to improve the article by adding some verses from the Bible which support God's omnipotence, someone came right behind me and removed these verses. Also, the section "Our Father", which had nothing to do at all with omnipotence (the Lord's Prayer mentioned in no way, shape, or form the issue of omnipotence, therefore straying away from the subject of this article), I removed for the aforementioned reason, was reintroduced into this article. One last thing, the God of the Bible is always refered to in the masculine, as a man, so I removed the reference about God in the feminine (God is masculine, and is never asigned the feminine gender), one change which was also undone for the only reason that someone thinks that God should be a woman...

The simple fact is that the Bible testifies to the belief that God is omnipotent, that God is masculine, and that someone is trying to keep this article from putting forth arguments for omnipotence and against, and as such, is nothing more than propaganda by definition. Dantheman102100 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That someone would be me, and here is why:

• There already was a verse there, you did not add your own verses, you simply removed the verse by your verses. So I simply reverted to the last version, since you made 3 major changes at ones.

The problem was with the swapping, please feel free to add your verses.

• The Lords Prayer clearly states: "your will be done", what is not omnipotent about it?

• The article is about Omnipotence, not God of the Bible, or God of the bible being omnipotent, that is just a part of the article.

as the head of the article states : "Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God." But there are more monotheistic religions than Christianity, Shaivism for example is an Eastern monotheistic religion in with Shiva is masculine and feminine and they also call him/her God. And there are references in the Bible to God having both sexes:

""So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27 "

If God created man and woman in his image, He/She must have both of them in Him/Her.

And some more verses

""As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings, so the Lord alone did lead [Jacob] and there was no strange god with him." Deut 32:11-12 [KJV]"

""You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth." Deut 32:18"

""As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you." Isa. 66:13a"

""I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs." Hos. 13:8a"

God in the Bible is simply more seen as masculine, since the culture (jewish) was/is mostly masculine, as is our culture. I myself would also like to see the article more balanced, but not just from one point of view, omnipotence is a phenominon that is seen in many religions, not just christianity.

Furthermore I am not a shaivist, nor am I against christianity or any religion or pro any other, everyone is allowed to have his/her own views and since giving God the feminine sex does not exclude him/her being masculine, less views are discriminated. Not giving God any sex at all would even create more reactions: calling God It. So it is better to settle with masculin and feminin. This is in no way "nothing more than propaganda by definition" I find it is better to keep an open mind.

Happy editing Teardrop onthefire 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed the verse that was already there because it didn't have anything to do with omnipotence. Like you said, it was simply Jesus' prayer that God's "will be done", which in no way shape or form comes close to saying God is omnipotent. The verses I mentioned, however, clearly say that God has a vast amount of power at His disposal, so much infact, that He is omnipotent. While the verse from the Lord's Prayer is a testimony that God has a will, it doesn't show that God has unlimited power to bring His will about.

2. Of course there are more monotheistic religions than Christianity, and some of them do attribute omnipotence to their deity. However, the article by and large refers to the Christian God, not shiva, or any other god, but with the Lord God, Jehova, YHWH. If this article wants to attribute both sexes to their deities, then this article should clarify that it is speaking of these other deities found in other religions, and make clear that it isn't speaking of the Christian God.

BTW, Shaivism is a branch of Hinduism unless I'm mistaken, and Shiva is the primary god, not the only god. In Hinduism, there are several thousand different gods.

3. Yes God created mankind in His own image, I've no argument there. However, God is masculine. Jesus, who is said by the Bible to be God incarnate, wasn't a woman, to reflect a feminine nature, nor was He a hermaphordite. He was a man.

Also, you managed to find a handful of verses that imply that God's personality has female traits, which He does. However, using this logic I could say this: a woman cries when she is sad. A man cries when he is sad. Therefore, the man must be a woman!

Simply because a creature which is male posseses traits which can be feminine in nature, that does not mean that the creature is female simply because it posseses these feminine traits.

4. I'm using this points by number system because it is easier to address the points which you brought up. I'm not trying to be condecending or anything. :) Dantheman102100 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK here we go.

1. Correct me if I am mistaken but "Your will be done" is short for saying "God, your will shall be executed". If Gods will shall always be executed he is omnipotent.

2. Shaivism and Vaishnavism are indeed branches of Hinduism, since Hinduism is not a religion but a collection of religions. One hindu believes Shiva is God, and other gods are more like "angelic figures", an other hindu will state Vishnu is God, with Shiva his best disciple. But many hindu will consider themselves monotheist. Hinduism and hinduistic concepts are not simple or simplistic. I usualy try to make a study about an unknow (to me) religion before making statements about them. Below is and extract from the wikipedia entry on Vishnu.Please have a look at the italic text.

Vishnu (IAST viṣṇu, Devanagari विष्णु, with honorific Shri Vishnu; śrī viṣṇu, श्री विष्णु ), is a form of God, in Hinduism. For Vaishnavas, he is the Ultimate Reality or God, as is Shiva for Shaivites. In Trimurti concept (sometimes called the Hindu Trinity), he is the second aspect of God (the others being Brahma and Shiva).

Before you say there are three gods in hinduism, not every hindu accepts the Trimurtri concept.

I already made a footnote reference that assigning both sexes to God is done in other religions than Christianity.

3.The verses I gave had a typical female conotation (giving birth..), crying is not exclusively female.

I have no recollection of reading the Bible were is said that Jesus is God incarnate. When Jesus is asked "Are you the Son of God", he aswers "You've said it".But in that aspect we can all be sons and daughters of God. So he does not state he is God himself. If you do have a reference on that please state it here. But this is a whole other theological discussion. I do not have to asume Jesus is God, this would BTW not give an explanation for the jewish point of view. Jesus is indeed a man, but since women had a low social status in that region in that period of time, a woman wanting to a prophet would never be accepted. Religions around the God YHWH being almost exclusively male says more about the social status of women in the spirit of the time than on the sex of God.

On a biological point of view, every human first (woman's womb) has all attributes of a female, every person is first a woman, only if certain hormones are released, a child will change into a male. Why would God (in whose image we are made) make all humans female first if God is male? In many animals male are dispensable (most insects and some amphibia). Females also have a longer life expectancy, are healthier and there are more women than men. So why would God be a man if he made women stronger (in his image) than men. Just a though.

• Assuming I do believe Jesus is God incarnate:

God could have chosen to carnate into a man, since carnating into a woman he would not be excepted (in a mostly masculine society).

• The statistical chance of being a hermaphrodite (with the human race)are very small indeed.
• Personaly (my own POV) if God is not equaly male and female, how can it be he is omnipotent not having balance in sexuality.

But i guess this doesn't count as an argument.

4. Good idea.

Teardrop onthefire 13:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The verse is saying that the person praying (Jesus) is asking God's will to be done; you are trying to make it seem as if Jesus said God's will will be done.

God's will is not always done, and this is Jesus asking God for God's will to be done. Jesus is not saying that God's will will be done. As such, it makes no reference to God's supposed omnipotence.

2. Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion; if you honestly think that, you need to do some reasearching. How do I prove that Hinduism is polytheistic? Simple, I can list several different godS: Indra, Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Agni, Soma, Rudra, Dyaus, and several others, plus several other goddesses. Hinduism is clearly polytheistic, not monotheistic as you claim.

But regardless, I see that note that you have put into the article, so I will let this issue drop, as quite frankly I don't have any desire to discuss hinduism with you here.

3. A. The Bible states several times that Jesus is God incarnate. One such example would be 1 John 5:7, which says "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I could also raddle off about a dozen others, including such as John 10:30 (Jesus speaking says "I and my Father are one"), and John 8:58 (Jesus again speaking says "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.", I am being the same name given to God in Exodus 3:14, commonly translated as Jehova and YHWH). I've read the Bible through cover to cover 3 times and study it for about an hour per day, I think it is safe to say I kind of know what I'm talking about here.

B. I never asked to to assume that Jesus is God, and moreover, we are not speaking of the Jewish point of view, we are discussing the Christian point of view.

C. If the status of women in Biblical times comments more on the political climate of the time as opposed to the gender of God, why did you bring it up in the first place?

D. No, humans are not femal originally. As soon as the female egg merges with the male sperm, the two cells merge into a zygote, which then developes into an embryo and a fetus, which continues to develop into full grown adults. But, as soon as the egg and the sperm merge into the zygote, the zygote doesn't have any gender, making it neither male or female. During the human gestation period, the embryo develops the characteristics of its gender, whether male or female. But the point is simply that humans don't start out of female.

E. It matters not that there are more women, or that they are generally healthier, or that their life expectancy is longer, than that of males. Even assuming that all that is true (which it may not), it is absolutly irrelivant to this discussion. As such, what you have done is a logical fallacy called a red herring. So, lets stick to the subject at hand eh? Besides all this, God didn't make women stronger than men. ;)

4. A.The Bible says that God has no respect of persons, and as such it is unwise to think that God chose to be made into a male because he feared what others might think of the Biblical God being made into a female.

B. Regardless of what the chance of becoming a hermaphrodite may be, with God all things are possible, and as such, if God wanted, he could have chose either sex, or He could have chosen to become a hermaphrodite.

Dantheman102100 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And Again

1. There are different interpretation of the Lords Prayer (just see the wikipage). If the vision you are putting forth is one of the established ones I have no objection of the removal, state the view of Christian churches (not just your church) on the matter here. (Just for fun, now you say God's will is not always done, and you are trying to prove with some biblical verses he is, aren't you contradicting yourself?)

2.You clearly read beside my explenation on hindu religion. So I'll state it again. It is an umbrella religion, I never said hinduism was monoteistic, I said some brashes of hinduism are monotheistic like for example Shaivism and Vaishaism. For a Vaishaist there is only one God and Vishnu is (one of) his name. I think that qualifies for being monotheistic. Christianity also has other non human figures with names speaking in Gods name: Gabriël, Michaël, Rafaël, Uriël. Even God is three Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If such concepts exist in Christianity why can't you exept them in other religions.

3.A mystisist can also say, me and my Father are one, because he "feels" the devine touch. But since the other verses seem proper and you are the bible expert here, I'll leave it here. But just because Jesus is a male it dos not prove God is. + you did not answer me on the : The verses I gave had a typical female conotation (giving birth..), crying is not exclusivly female. I though the Christian YHWH and the jewish YHWH where the same since the old testament is more or less the THORA, making it the same point of view?

On the embryo thing about humans not being females first, this is what I was tough in biology I don't know what they tough you but have a look at this : http://www.narth.com/docs/berman2.html

And this  : The female is obviously the older and primary structure of reproduction extract come from here http://www.nvsh.nl/development/embryonic.htm

E. this statement makes it clear you are a christian male, trying to push your thoughts.

4. That is all POV.

Teardrop onthefire 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even Hindu (I'm Buddhist), and I know that Dantheman is wrong about Hinduism. In Hinduism, all of the thousands of deities, and even the Divine Triad (Siva, Brahma, Vishnu), all further vanish into one Godhead entity. Sikhism, Islam, some offshoots of Buddhism and Taoism, etc. all also teach of an omnipotent God, which is not always imagined in a masculine light. Furthermore, the general point is that this article has to do with the general philosophical CONCEPT. If we wish to make the article about Christianity, then it would have to be called "Omnipotence in Christianity" or have a similar caveat. One could theoretically ascribe omnipotence to (just choosing an object at random here) a burrito. In fact, fictional cosmologies like most comic books frequently postulate omnipotent or at least cosmic deities, again not all of whom are imagined as masculine. And there are undoubtedly Gaia-based religions or modern cults that ascribe omnipotence to a female or asexual deity.

POV

This material is unclear and completely written from a Jehova's Witness point of view. I've moved it here, in case there's any useful information to extract. --Stephen Gilbert

---

Thanks Ed Poor for your new version of the article, that was the point I wanted to make (which, to my surprise, I heard from Jehova's Witnesses)

However, I do agree with RK that the overview of different perspectives from the God article should be incorporated. I think it should be moved from the God article. I didn't search for the term before I wrote the article, because there were question-references to the term (even in the God article, despite explaining the term omnipotence later in the article).

I would want my examples back in, but I will think of explaining them better.

The omnipotence of God is used by some to proof that He does not exist, because He would just have created people programmed to be obiedient to Him. An argument against this (from Jehova's witnesses) is that God wants people to be creative and therefore has to allow them free will. It is not necessary to be able to accomplish contradictory goals to be the Souvereign of the universe, as the simultaneous accomplishment of contradictory goals is meaningless.

"as the simultaneous accomplishment of contradictory goals is meaningless."

Says who? You? Who are you? Do you really think you have the mental capacity to comprehend the actions of an omnipotent being who created all that exists? 68.166.68.84 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

NPOV-ed this again since there is still too much mention of 'God'. It should be generalised or it should be merged with God and then a new, more general, Omnipotence page should be recreated. Come on there's plenty more to be said about omnipotence that doesn't involve some people's big guy in the sky.

Agreed; why does God need to be included in this article at all? Could the article not simply include a concise, technical definition of omnipotence and only give God as an example?

I agree. But this arguement means that we should respect the opinion of each and everyone. It's just a matter of one's belief. -jonathan gonzales

The Free Will Issue with Omniscience, for some reason being discussed on this page

Kids, omniscience only negates free will if free will implies the ability to enact states of affairs which are unkown to any agents. No even libertarian definitions of free will imply such a thing. So there is at least no prima facie reason to reject the statement, "God knows that I will freely do X." If you really want a legitimate objection that is taken seriously by scholarship, it goes something like this: Libertarian free will means that I have any number of possible actions open to me. From this it follows that for any future action X, I could have done ~X. In other words, both X and ~X are possible. So the objection says that if God knows with certainty (presumably the type of knowing an omniscient being does) that I will freely choose X, it seems to be the case that, if ~X is possible (by the definition of free will), it is possible that God falsely believes that I will do X. But of course, an omniscient being, axiomatically, cannot be wrong. Thus the paradox. Personally I think the theist ought to either attack the apparent presumption of possibilism in favor of a strong actualism, or just deny (plausibly, it seems to me) that future events exist. In the latter case, there is no such thing as knowledge of future events, and so the paradox does not arise. There are other avenues as well, if anyone wants to discuss it further. Dextris Dei 03:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure what version of God we're discussing here, but I assume the one that is aswell atemporal, and thus exists past, present, future as not existing in future (and thus future events being still non-existant) would imply being limited by the actual state of time - present time. Thus the paradox continues.

MaybeNextTime

• ...and thus exists past, present, future as not existing in future (and thus future events being still non-existant)... You may (or may not) have here of the portrayal of the Tao as a river. Although the river flows and is always in motion, although leaves fall and are carried by it and flow their own course, the river is everywhere at the same time: at the source, in the middle and at sea. The leaf follows the little streams and is thus dependent on time. the Tao is not, since according to taoist views, time would be a part of the flowing river (the current) Teardrop onthefire 08:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited some stuff

I removed the "Uncertainty" section. It was a verbose way of saying that human perception of the supernatural is limited to mere human perception, which is obvious. Plus it was in the POV of someone with a religious predisposition, speaking of God as a factual being.

I also removed a bunch of duplicate text, someone apparently copied/pasted the whole thing into itself. --RITZ 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a pity you do not edit the text if it is POV to a lesser POV version, in stead most editors seem to take a short cut to thinking and simply remove stuff they don't like, this is not a constructive way of building an article. I asked for comment on the text written, but no reply came, so I altered the text to lesser POV (of course i am only one person, so any input is very appreciated).

It is stated that in the text in question god is represented as factual, but isn't this the case in all the logic topics also (if you asume god makes a rock he can not lift, you are assuming god exists, and i don't see any statements god is not seen as factual there). I hope I don't have to put "if god should exist" in front of every sentence. I can always start the text with "presuming god exists, we can not know what god is doing".I hope no one will come around deleting the text because i then question the existence of god.

It is not because something is obvious, something shouldn't be added. The first question that springs to mind is, obvious to who? If all info that is obvious to you is qualified for deletion, you can go and delete a lot of info on wikipedia.

I'm going to put the text back in an altered form, hoping to make it less POV. If you do have issues, the talk page is the place to utter them, the talk place is not just the place to tell people why something was deleted by you.

Teardrop onthefire 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teardrop. I don't like removing stuff, so I shoud give you a day to ref it properly, but it really reads like OR at the moment. NBeale 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is really my intent to reference the text, but I also have a busy job, and a day is really short for referencing, since I want to do a proper job on it. I have already asked for help on referencing and inproving on the WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taoism and we are working on it to make the "other views" text quality. If you remove the text, there will be nothing left to reference and the article will be a one sided view. If you want to see a specifiek reference placed please insert the {{fact]}} tag and I (we) will accelerate our search. You are ofcourse encouraged to place references yourself. Please remember, it is in no case my intention to press my thoughts, I have only experienced different first-hand religious views and do believe it is valuable to incorporate them. It is in no case my intention to express right or wrong of the views already stated or the views I try to add, but if a view or concept exists it should be mentioned, that's what an encyclopedia is for. Teardrop onthefire 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty and other views

I have started adding some references in this part of the article, please add the {{fact}} tag to statements you would like to see referenced more quickly Teardrop onthefire 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some extra references where added, if you want specific references added please make this clear by adding the {{fact}} tag. If not I suggest the "orginal research" template to be removed. I would remove it myself, but would like to wait for consensus. Teardrop onthefire 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no more requests I will remove the Original Research tag as of Monday 12 March 2007, please post objections or request for reference under this post. Teardrop onthefire 11:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence in the Bible

"Some of those who reject omnipotence do so on scriptural grounds. They note that the word "omnipotence" is absent from the Bible."

In the KJV and the WBS god is described as Omnipotent in Revelations. Perhaps this statement should be clarified a bit.

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." - Revelations 19:6 KJV & WBS Yes, but god is powerful, that what it triest ot tell us

Travis Cleveland 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A algebraic expression maybe

GOD=∞W

My own concoction for expressing the idea of gods omnipotence. Not that i would believe in such things... feel free to edit. Soulman3990 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence & free will?

Doesn't omnispotence preclude free will? If an entity can do everything then it must also know everything all the time (otherwise it could not do everything at any time as it wouldn't know everything all the time) which leads to the entity also knowing what everything has done/does/will do all the time thus making free will only an illusion? It should be noted that this also applies to the entity itself. - G3, 01:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the post DIRECTLY ABOVE YOURS.

Ah, yes...but I still make 2 good points: Omnipotence requires permanent omniscience and that entity's omniscience applies to the entity itself. - G3, 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I only see one good point there, but I do agree with it. If an entity truly has the ability to do anything, then that would include the ability to know anything, however, since true omnipontence is not logically self-consistent (ie. not possible) it's kind of a moot point. 206.45.164.255 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

If a toymaker makes a remote-controlled car, the car would have no free will. Its actions are determined by an outside source directly.

If a toymaker makes a toy car that is designed to drive in circles as soon as it's turned on until its battery dies, the car acts on its own but the creator knows everything it will do.

Eh ... why would we be limited by it? How could knowing something prevent you from doing something? How could it limit your actions? "Oh, He knows everything that I will be doing in the future. Man, that sucks, I can only do what He knows!" Which is everything, by the way. Artur Buchhorn 01:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a good philosophical article?

From what I can see, there's a few reiterations of the same theme in this article, and a lot of philosophical argumentation that doesn't seem to be sourced to particular authors or philosophers. ArekExcelsior 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Simpsons Episode, [DABF11] Season: 13 // Epsiode 285: Homer Simpson: (asking Ned Flanders) "Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

The answer to Homer's question is yes. All he would have to do is manifest in a form that could eat food and feel pain.

Yes, but then he would be able to eat the 'burrito'. Which then says that he was unable to 'microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it'.

        So this proves that God is NOT omnipotent!  Being omnipotent, nothing could ever 

exist that God could not do. So there should never exist a burrito he could not eat. By the same token, this makes it impossible for God to microwave a burrito hot enough that he could not eat it. The argument that he could manifest into mortal form and not eat it is moot, because he is choosing to not be able to eat it by his own will. Hence, he could eat if he wanted to. We, as humans, could in fact do something impossible for God to do. We can microwave a burrito so hot that it would be impossible to eat. Now it is all a matter of defining what this threshold is.

        Is it too hot because we cannot hold it in our mouth for more than a few seconds?  

This would easily be defeated if we take it to an extreme; one could eat a glowing hot ember if he really wanted to. So is it so hot that it is physically impossible to eat it? This would mean that even if someone without any perception of pain tried to swallow the burrito, it would physically melt through any living tissue and could not be eaten. Taking it to another level, what is defined as eating? If it is the act of having a physical mass pass

into one's mouth, down their throat, and into their stomach, then even the "melting" theory 

would be defeated - one could let the melting hot burrito pass into their mouth, down their throat, into their stomach (i.e. "eating" has occurred), and melt through the stomach and back

out of the body.  So is there a timeout period or wait that the "mass" must be held in the 

stomach? Or is someone out there pushing for a digestion component? My conclusion? Any discussions about omnipotence are without merit because we have no standard of defining example upon which to base our definitions. Any guesses are clearly going to be wrong. Any interpretations from holy writings are MOST CERTAINLY WRONG, because we as humans cannot possibly interpret TRUE holy writings. The holy word of God, in all its meaning, from whatever

religion, cannot possibly be captured in human writing.  Anyone that believes so is in 

complete denial of reality, and of God. To presume that one can interpret the exact meaning of what God has communicated to us is simply ridiculous. --A.A.

---

You're taking the analogy too far. Eating is hard to define, but the real paradox is one with an easily definable action, like moving an unmovable rock. In this case, you can't complicate it enough to dismiss it. -CG

An omnipotent God can give up his omnipotence. This is called "kenosis" or self-limitation, and in fact according to Christian theology one of the persons of the trinity did do this when he came to earth as a human being with limited power and knowledge. Clearly if God is omnipotent, he can create a rock so big he can't lift it. At that point, of course, he ceases to be omnipotent (though he could no doubt destroy the rock and thereby become omnipotent again), but that does not mean he ceases to be God. I am a male. I could lop off my genitals and cease to be identifiably male, but that does not mean that I would cease to be me. Same with God. Just my opinion. CaliforniaKid 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By removing his omnipotence he is choosing not to move the boulder then. If I can move a paperclip with my finger across a table, but I chop off my finger to prove I cannot move it, then I am deciding not to move it. So in fact God cannot microwave a burrito so hot even he could not eat it. If he chooses to limit himself in a way that would prevent him from being able to eat it, then he is choosing not to, cause under normal circumstances he is omnipotent. --Zer0faults 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This question could better be expressed as something along the lines of "Could God (or another omnipotent being) create something so hazardous that He could not handle (or approach, or even examine) it? Alx xlA 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that you are giving God human traits, such as physical pain. Also, you do know that the creator of the Simpsons is a Christian, right?

The problem with this is you're acting as if not being able to eat the burrito is an ability, where it's actually a lack of ability.

The rock thing is weak as well. It asks God to eclipse his own power which is illogical. It seems silly to play word games and find "logical errors" in an omnipotent being. God could do it, and you wouldn't understand how until he showed you. Then your head would explode.

If you want an actual answer, God could make a vow to never lift the largest rock in the universe. Therefore he would be unable to move it because it's too heavy (the largest), and able to move it if he chooses by erasing his vow from history.

No, the question asked is not "Does God not have the ability to eat a burrito?" The question is if one of God's omnipotent abilities could exceed another one of his omnipotent abilities: Could his ability to heat something up exceed his ability to eat it?

Why is it illogical to, with one capacity, exceed another capacity? Human beings routinely create objects too heavy for the creator of the object to lift, or create a weapon that can kill the creator of the weapon.

If God can erase his vows from history, and (by extension) his immoral actions from history, that sort of makes an immoral pathological liar out of God, doesn't it?

Since the actions would be erased, they would have never taken place, so no wrong would have been done, or the wrong would be righted. But considering from a hindu (one of many views who believe the same) god is satchitananda or Truth Conscienousness and Bliss. So God would never lie. Just my two cents Teardrop onthefire 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted part of uncertainty and other views

PrometheusArisen Please elaborate on your deletion of the male and female principles of God, if it was ill-formed it should be adapted, not deleted. Teardrop onthefire 10:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Common attributes of god

Jealousy is quite common in monotheistic religious (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share the Old Testament which clearly reiterates God as being, among other things, Jealous. try [1] as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.93.1 (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This aricle is about omnipotence of a godhead, not the specific judaistic or christian godhead. In my opinion you may add the word if it is explained you are talking about judaistic or christian tradition. Teardrop onthefire (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The traditions are implied -- Christianity, Judaism (and maybe Islam) are the only "Western Monotheistic Religions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.250.181 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct if you are talking about western monotheistic religions, although the intro is stating only "monotheistic" religions. Shaivism and Vaishnavism are "eastern monotheistic" religions wich do not attribute jealousy to their god. Please clarify this on your jealousy note Teardrop onthefire (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About omnipotence paradox

Okay I'm not a smart person but, what if God gave up his powers to the stone, then he wouldn't be able to lift it. Thus creating one "correct" answer? 83.226.148.184 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Really you are "not a smart person" if you read anything on this page you would have known that there isn't a correct answer. The question is like asking you what is the largest and smallest number. The largest number can always increase and the smallest can be divided smaller so it is pointless to give a number. --Gnemnes 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not really like that at all. The point of the article is to show that true omnipotence is logically inconsistent, and thus impossible. As for the original question; If God gave up his powers permanently then he wouldn't be omnipotent. If he gave them up "temporarily" then it would be the same as him choosing not to lift the stone, since he would be capable of getting his powers back whenever he liked. It's analagous to saying I can't see because I've closed my eyes. That being said, it was a legitimate question, don't think of yourself as being stupid for asking it. 207.161.46.180 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

There is a problem with the omnipotence/omniscience and free will thing. If a god, say, God, created us with free will, then we can choose what we do and when (within limits) we do it. There is a major problem here, since an omniscient God can see all till the end of time, and beyond, he knows every choice that we will make. This means that everything is now preordained. Free will has suddenly gone <poof>...Sorry folks.195.93.21.71 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Peter M.

Have you ever thought that omniscience means to have the power to know everything there is to know (namely the past and the present not the future becouse it has not yet happened there by you can't know anything about it, unless you predict a posibility, a posibibility not something certain)--Eternal Imortal 13:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not right. You're confusing our ability to choose with a being's ability to predict it. If you're with someone you know very well, say having dinner with them. They get a phone call from a telemarketer. Now you know that your friend always hangs up on telemarketers immediately, and indeed that is what your friend proceeds to do. You haven't taken away their free will simply because you knew what they were going to do. Similarly, if God was omniscient then he would know what you will decide to do in a given situation, but it is still YOU who's deciding. 207.161.1.234 04:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

The problem here is that you didn't KNOW what your friend was going to do till they did it. You only had a good idea, knowing the sorts of things your friend is LIKELY to do. Our omniscient being KNOWS everything that has and will have happened, INCLUDING any "choices". This is more akin to "God" being the reader of a book, which makes up the entirety of OUR universe. In the book, the characters have choices to make, but these have all been written as having occurred a certain way anyway. Peter M.

So what if I knew my friend was going to hang up immediately? I don't see why this would take away his or her free will. Just because our actions are predicted it does not mean our choice is taken away. This prediction does not affect our choices. Even if it is already written down, still it is not done yet. Or am I messing up something? ;)

By the way, a person, claiming another one to be 'not smart' (id est stupid), clearly is stupid. Artur Buchhorn 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the idea that God gave people free will be negated by the fact that God knows everything you are about to for eternity. That would show that you actualyl had no free will and instead were just permitted to the things God knew you would do before you were even created. Then again God exists outside is the same lame excuse always given to paradox's. Back the rock thing however, if he chooses to limit himself for a time, then he is choosing not to move the rock, its not that he cannot move the rock. Being omnipotent at any moment he can choose to just move it, he is just choosing not to.

Just a thought of a different concept about the rock---Assuming the christian and many other beliefes of the concept of GOD Everything that god creates, is in fact a part of GOD. Bassicly god is absolutely everything, and there is nothing outside or seperate to god. That would mean for example god created the laws of physics, that is the laws of physics are a part of GOD. That also means, GOD created logic as we know it. So when we ask, "can GOD lift a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it", what we are really asking is then, "Can god under the conditions of logic for which he has set out, lift a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift it". One can then see then, that the limitations of contradictions from logic are actually created by GOD, as everything possible in existence according to christian beleif is a creation of GOD. One can then easily conclude that as GOD is the creator of such logic, and not subject to it, (as god is subject to no outside influence or things), then to ask such a question is meaningless as we are only asking god if he can do somthing for which he has limited himself already.

Basically, when we ask about the stone we are saying this..."Hey god, if you were to limit yourself to the logic you created, would you be able to lift a stone so heavy you couldn't lift it?" God could answer no with no problems, still not making him any less omnipotent. Because now we are asking God to put constraints on himself and then asking if he would be able to do somthing....

In summary, when we are asking contradictory questions based on the logic God created, we are asking if God must also abide by the logic he created. Would be the same as asking if God had to abide by the laws of physics, or if God had to abide by gravity..... If god had to abide logic itself then he would not be omnipotent. The fact that the notion of god is that of omnipotence means that God would not have to abide by the laws of logic, and thus would have no problems doing somthing we would percieve as contradictory. ---- Duva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.152.146 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Logic forms the basis of human thought, and by extension all language and understanding. It would be utterly futile to even think about or discuss a being that could operate beyond logical principles. Nothing you could say about it would be true. Nothing could be said about it with any certainty. It would essentially be an intelligence utterly alien to human intelligence. Probably too alien even for true communication. This poses the questions: 1) Would such a being have any relevence to a logical being other than as a threat? Its behaviour being utterly unpredictable. 2) Is it possible to find evidence of a logic-breaking phenomenon in the universe? Would a logical mind be able to percieve a logic-breaking phenomenon without insanity?

If God is not limited by outside influence of things then that also includes human description, or categorisation. eg: To say God tells the truth would prevent God from lying. To say God is good would prevent God from acting in an evil way. Therefore, humans may not make any statement about the nature of God.

What if?

What if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient; but cannot be both at one instant, nor have access to both abilities at the same time?

(just wondering...)206.156.242.39 18:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To be omnipotent is the power to do anything. To be omniscient is the power to know anything. If you can do anything, you can make it so you know anything, so they don't seem exclusive like that. Your question seems to make no sense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally I'm writing a work of fiction about creatures that ARE Omnipotent, but not Omniscient, because just because you CAN do everything that doesn't mean you also know HOW TO do everything. 62.251.127.12 11:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That means you strip them off omnipotency, because if they really are omnipotent then anything they dont know HOW TO do, they could just make themselfs DO it anyway, beause they are OMINPOTENT. Foant 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're omnipotent you could just make yourself omniscient... Evercat 11:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's say Michael Jordon is omnipotent on jamming balls but omniscient on it; some Docs are omniscient and can tell us when Michael Jordon is jamming balls his muscle contracts in certain ways, but these Docs can NEVER jam balls like Air Jordon and they aren't . [KH Rex]

Uh. Either you're omnipotent, or you aren't. You can't be omnipotent "on" something.

KH Rex, that doesn't make any sense. That has nothing to do with omnipotence. Michael Jordan is good at "jamming balls" but that doesn't make him "omnipotent". If he was omnipotent, then the basketball analogy would stop making sense. Then again, biologically, the logical paradox of the Michael Jordan theorem is fundamentally flawed in that jamming balls is usually a bad thing to do and could get you disqualified for sabotaging your opponent's balls in a logical loop of theuristic disappropriative dissonance. Anyway, I think this article should be scrapped and written over. It's obvious that we will simply continue to make annoying tweaks until someone snaps and deletes the entire site. [John Everest]

You can't be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time, its just not possible. Take this example: I have an apple on my desk. If I am omniscient, I can tell you this second whether or not the apple will be in the same place 5 minutes from now. Say that is done, and I said yes, it will be there in 5 minutes. Now, I am no longer omnipotent, since I can not move the apple, since doing so would invalidate my statement that it will remain in place. If one has the ability to predict, one does not have the ability to change. -Matt

If you are omniscient, then you know that you are not going to use your power to eat/move/whatever the apple within the next five minutes. Any circumstance that could cause you to eat the apple before 5 min. you would already know of, so your power would not be limited by your knowledge. In addition, when you are dealing with arguments concerning God, most religeons that claim He is omnipotent and omniscient also clame that He exists outside of time. Therefore, the omniscience is a direct result of His simultaneously seeing the present and the future. -r4pt0r

This may prove to be a bit confusing for a novice in philosophy, so please read as many times as needed. A wise man once said, "I think therefore I am". Simply put, "I exist because I am aware that I exist". Logic also dictates that, "If something can exist, then it does exist". The existence of that "something" in a physical or imaginary state is irrelevant. For example, a fantasy exists in dreams in the mind. They are not physical, but they are still in existence; and are happening. Existence is a state of awareness. Yet at the same time, it is possible to be unaware that you exist and still be in existence. For example, a baby exists but doesn't perceive their own existence due to a lack of maturity. Omnipotence is (1.)the ability to do anything. (2.)The state of being all powerful. This ability is generally attributed to deities. "If it is possible to do anything, then it is possible to create anything; including an existence where anything can exist, or even creations who could resist the creator". One of the most asked questions by many scholars is, "If an omnipotent being could make another being with the ability to resist their control, would they"? "And if so, why"? Many Gods of many faiths and fictions have varying rationales behind their actions. The God of the Christian faith gave his creations the freedom to choose not to serve his commands. Abstract arguments abound as to why this was done. The most accepted explanation is that God is a deity who has chosen for himself the attributes of good and love as defining characteristics of his nature. So much so in fact, that he has become the physical manifestion of these attributes. It would be logical that a God with such a character would prefer to have servants that obey because they have made a conscience choice to do so. It is also Logical that their would be creations that would choose the opposite. The bible teaches that God has chosen to exist in a constant state of self denial towards anything that is of a negative state. It also teaches that his creations can exist in this same state of being when they are with him. If God is good incarnate and hince pleasurable to be around, then to exist in a state without him is to exist in evil and suffering. The next question is, "Why give these servants free will"? A logical explanation is that an omnipotent and omniscience being knows that just because you can be evil doesn't mean you will be. It is also logical that for an omipotent being, a reality can be created where all its inhabitants exist in an infinite positive state. Logic dictates that it is possible to resist absolute power if the ability to resist was given by that same power. It is logical that an omnipotent being with no perception of their potential can exist with their power in a dormant state. Cross reference Alternate Reality, Omniscience, Omnipresence and Parallel Dimension. References to these topics can also be found in the such pop culture media as the Matrix Trilogy. I suggest a cross referencing with other encyclopedias as well. -Deolandzo

This would be confusing to a novice in philosophy insofar as it was written by one.

There is a slight midunderstanding here. "Cogito ergo sum" does NOT mean that you exist because you think, but rather since you think, you must exist...A subtle difference.82.6.1.85 (talk)Lancetyrell —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Absolute Power

There is no so called Absolute power becouse if power is absolute it could destroy itself becouse its absolute and thats why its not absolute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.98.182 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

truth devided

Jesus is omnipresent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.221.116 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof? --Pleasedonot5 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of God and Related Pronouns

What's this with the decapitalisation of pronouns referring to God? Is this some sort of new secular standard I haven't heard of yet? -- Tim Starling 03:18 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

From User talk:Tim Starling:

Hi. Is there a convention on capitalising "he" etc when it's about God? -- Evercat 13:07 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. What, you thought it was an accident, did you? -- Tim

I mean a convention on Wikipedia. I thought I'd read somewhere that it was considered POV, but maybe I misremembered. -- Evercat 13:16 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping you would tell me. I don't think there is such a convention. I did a quick search, and I didn't find anything related. I've never heard of it being offensive or POV or anything else, but then, what would I know? I don't even understand what's offensive about AD. But I don't think we should break with (external) convention without a good reason. -- Tim Starling 13:32 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I have always learned that the convention is to capitalize pronouns referring to specific monotheistic gods. I agree about not breaking with convention except for a good reason, and I don't see a good reason spelled out in Wikipedia's Style Manual, but it does say there not to capitalize pronouns referring to divinities. -GTBacchus 19:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well alright, maybe I crossed the line in editing someone else's use of the convention. Sorry. I guess as long as a page is consistent it's OK. Still, I prefer the non-capitalised form, since it's standard grammar, as far as I know. There are pages that don't do this, e.g. Omnipotence paradox, even before I started working on that. -- Evercat 13:42 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

The Associated Press stylebook guidelines are to "capitalize God in references to the deity of monotheistic religions. Capitalize all noun (and pronoun) references to the diety. Lowercase gods and godesses in references to the deities of polytheistic religions...." Some old AP stylebooks have conflicting statements in regard to pronouns, but it is pretty accepted to capitalize them. Other styles have similar guidelines, but some don't. It is a pretty well accepted norm. However, I feel that consistency is the key -Visorstuff 20:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

If there is to be discussion as to whether Wikipedia should capitalize pronouns for God (I'm inclined to think we should), perhaps it should take place at the capitalization conventions discussion page rather than here. -GTBacchus 01:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

If the word god applies to specific god (ie. the God) then it should be capitalized. If it is used to name a god that could be omnipotent (Spaghetti Monster, Allah, YHWH, Krishna, God, Giant Melon Head, etc..) then it should be decapitalized otherwise it's a POV that makes only God omnipotent. - G3, 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The deity of the monotheistic religions is identified by several names, such as "God", "YHWH", "Allah" etc. The name in English that is universally recognized is "God", and should be capitalized as all names are. Further, as the concept of "omnipotence" is discussed not in relation to any deity but only in relation with the deity of of the monotheistic religions, i.e. God, the use of "deity" instead of "God" in the article is confusing. Dianelos (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Omnipotence

Can an omnipotent being commit suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.202.67 (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, an omnipotent being cannot commit suicide. This is because suicide is possible only for synthetic beings: beings whose integrity is subject to compromise by other beings. An omnipotent being, by definition, is not subject to compromise. An omnipotent being is a being the very being of which is infinite omnifarious agency. Omnipotence is not pure agency (cause-and-effect), because pure agency is an abstraction, on the part of knowing agents, of actual kinds of agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.139.150 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Entelechy

How exactly does omnipotence translate in terms of entelechy ? In some philosophies, God is defined as actus purus, how do you go from pure act to omnipotence ? 69.157.229.14 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Actual infinite, omnifarious agency is fully realized agency (omnipotence). Actuality is the condition of capacity. If a capacity is, say, five miles per hour, then three miles per hour also is possible. If the capacity is infinite velocity, then that capacity can be realized at any time, in regard to any space: simultaneous presence at the locations of origin and destination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.139.150 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional observations section

I just removed the "Additional observations" section which was added by an IP editor in early July. It was badly written, not wikified, and completely unreferenced. It look like the worst type of soapboxing and was attracting others with fringe theories. Please keep an eye out for it coming back... --Biker Biker (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who didn't know...

In Judeo-Christian theology, it is accepted and taught that God can do anything but fail. There is nothing of or outside of the Universe that can overcome, overwhelm or outmatch God. He isn't capable of creating a task, event or object that he cannot move, manipulate or command to His will. He also cannot go back on a promise, for if He did even once, it would completely negate His Word, thus contradicting and annihilating all that exists.

RandyS0725 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well that explains why the Bible is so consistent and completely accurate.

Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Omnipotence outside religion

This article only focuses on religious omnipotenance. I think a mention should be made upon the political theory of an omnipotent leader such as Hobbe's Leviathan or Gibbons views on the Roman emperor.

63.231.129.229 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In modern culture too. Specificly, this line from futurama seems a great example of the article's ideas about possible limitations of omnipotence: "Do you know what I'm going to do next?" "yes." "What if I do something else?" "Then I don't know that." Chardansearavitriol (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Logic & Omnipotence

Doesn't the definition of omnipotences free it from the grip of that which is logically possible? I don't recall and dictionary definition stating that omnipotence was "power limited only to what is logically possible". In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. While this wouldn't make sense from one logical being's point of view, another logical being introduced to the concept that "omnipotence is in no way limited by logic" would find the statement I gave (ironically) logical.

Exactly!!! 68.166.68.84 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries, by definition, must tend not to enumerate too many philosophical distinctions of their entries. It is enough for many lexicographers familiar with the philosophical debates on theistic omnipotence to enumerate only the most general sense of its usage, since the natural initial notion of omnipotence has none of the details of particular opinions as to what the notion implies. A fair percentage of the cummulative population of Anglo-saxon nations subscribe to the opinion that the term 'all' in the definition of the theistic sense of omnipotence cannot sensibly include what, in general contexts, is viewed by virtually all Anglo-saxons as nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatternOfPersona (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotence's existence as a force is impossible. Omnipotence causes paradoxes like such in the aforementioned rock example*. As we all hopefully possess the knowledge of -- paradoxes *cannot and will not* exist in our universe. Therefore, omnipotence cannot exist as a force in our universe.

Your argument is as if one is stating, "omnipotence is possible beccause it is defined as absolute power." Absolute power is in itself illogical, as it too is deciphered as power without limitation -- including the previously stated paradoxes -- which we all know cannot exist.

• If one creates a rock that cannot be lifted, and then lifts it, the rock can be lifted and the individual cannot create a rock that he himself cannot lift. Conversely, if one is able to create a rock that they cannot lift, and remain unable to lift the stated rock, then they are not all powerful. --Pleasedonot5 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If we begin by defining omnipotence as including the power to do the logically impossible, then we are allowing that this very definition of omnipotence remains consistent with itself in that no task which we may pose for it to accomplish can mean anything to it from its own point of view. In other words, in the face of such ‘absolute’ power, nothing at all can have any necessary qualities to begin with (including power, all-power, impotence, omni-impotence, existence, locality, sequentiality, simultaneity, cause-and-effect, logical hierarchy, quantity, contradiction, the principle of excluded middle, infinity, finitude, ultimacy, ideality, sense, nonsense, greater, lesser, etc.). So, while such a power can, by definition, create a rock that it then cannot lift, every quality of that rock task, including the result that that power is unable to lift the rock, is meaningless to that power. Such a power cannot care about what, from its own point of view, are just so many petty problems, because, for such a power, there already is no such thing as a logical contradiction. If such a power is posited to exist, then, to be consistent with that position, one also must posit that this power is meaningless even to itself (power). In short, if it is to be required that this power create a rock too heavy for it to lift, then that rock’s very quality of being too heavy for it to lift is indistinguishable from any other outcome (cause-and-effect). In shorter, there is no outcome as far as this ‘absolute’ power is concerned (sequentiality). When all this is pushed far enough, it can be seen that this conception of omnipotence dissolves into a Great Big Precisely Nothing. To posit a power that can do the logically impossible is to presuppose that such a power is the ultimate irrationality: some, who have actual rationality, however fallible, have been propping it up as the rationally required conception of omnipotence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.190.63 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We can arbitrarily posit a power that can do (only) the logically impossible. We naturally find that such a power’s tasks are meaningless. If such tasks are meaningless, then what makes them meaningful when we posit yet another power able to accomplish such tasks? Let’s posit a power that can do everything that’s logically impossible and only some things that are logically possible. Does that definition of that power cause the logically impossible tasks to be meaningful? No. So, how, then, does positing a power that can do both everything that’s logically possible and everything that’s logically impossible cause the logically impossible tasks to be meaningful. The answer is that it doesn’t. Such tasks are inherently meaningless, which is precisely why it is most naturally taken for granted that such a power cannot exist. The only sense in which logically impossible tasks are meaningful is in the sense that we can imagine them to be meaningful. An irrationally ‘absolute’ notion of omnipotence is merely the means by which logically impossible tasks are most naturally initially imagined to be meaningful. But, if such a notion of omnipotence is meaningful as such, then such a power cannot be proved not to exist. But, it is proved not to exist, by observing that the meaningless (illogical, irrational) half of its powers are meaningless. There is no such power as the power to do the logically impossible. In other words, such a power is logically impossible. PatternOfPersona (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Contra se

The SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) article on omnipotence asks, ‘If there are states of affairs that an omnipotent agent is powerless to bring about, then how is the notion of omnipotence intelligibly to be defined?’

Let a and b be mutually contra se. Therefore, ab (a+b) is not a state of affairs. Further, let a be a logically or ontologically necessary state of affairs. Therefore, b is not a state of affairs.

Therefore, the initial error of certain attempts at defining omnipotence is the assumption that the contra se of logically and ontologically necessary states of affairs are states of affairs. They are not. The more obscure error is the assumption that the power of omnipotence must be pure agency, while reserving the right to grant that empirically identified powers have qualities beyond that they are agents. For, if real powers be mere agency, then any real power has every imaginable quality of power over all kinds of states of affairs. For examples: a bird, as an agent, could pick worms out of a philosophy of metaphysics problem; a tornado could blow 2+2 up into five; a hammer could pound the dents out of erroneous reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.190.63 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotence not only about religion.

Omnipotence is not only about religion, it has a psychological meaning relating to narcissism etc.--Penbat (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the existing religion and philosophy material is too detailed. --Penbat (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)