Omnipotence

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of whichever faith is being addressed. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

Meanings

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.^[1]
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.^[2]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity", senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.^[2]

The word "Omnipotence" derives from the Latin term "Omni Potens", meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power" implied by its English counterpart. The term could be applied to both deities and Roman Emperors. Being the one with "All the power", it was not uncommon for nobles to attempt to prove their Emperor's "Omni Potens" to the people, by demonstrating his effectiveness at leading the Empire. This presents the most controversy when applied to Abrahamic Religions, since there was no word for "Infinite Power" in Ancient Semitic Languages like Hebrew or Aramaic.

Scholastic definition

Part of a series on
Attributes of God in Christian theology
Aseity Eternity Graciousness Holiness Immanence Immutability Impassibility Impeccability Incorporeality Jealousy Love Mission Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience Oneness Providence Righteousness Simplicity Transcendence Trinity Veracity Wrath
v · Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God." [3] In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain. Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction: His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. — Lewis, 18 In psychology Early Freudianism saw a feeling of omnipotence as intrinsic to early childhood. 'As Freud and Ferenczi have shown, the child lives in a sort of megalomania for a long period...the "fiction of omnipotence"'.[4] At birth. 'the baby is everything as far as he knows - "all powerful"...every step he takes towards establishing his own limits and boundaries will be painful because he'll have to lose this original God-like feeling of omnipotence'.[5] Freud considered that in a neurotic 'the omnipotence which he ascribed to his thoughts and feelings...is a frank acknowledgement of a relic of the old megalomania of infancy'.[6] In some narcissists, the 'period of primary narcissism which subjectively did not need any objects and was entirely independent...may be retained or regressively regained..."omnipotent" behavior'.[7] D. W. Winnicott took a more positive view of a belief in early omnipotence, seeing it as essential to the child's well-being; and "good-enough" mothering as essential to enable the child to 'cope with the immense shock of loss of omnipotence'[8] - as opposed to whatever 'prematurely forces it out of its narcissistic universe'.[9] Rejection or limitation Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to limit divine omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some movements within Protestant Christianity, including process theology and open theism, deities are said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (for open theism, this is a matter of choice—a deity could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does so—while for process theism it is a matter of necessity—creatures have inherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle, override). Deities are manifested in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by miracles or violations of the laws of nature. The rejection of omnipotence often follows from either philosophical or scriptural considerations, discussed below. Philosophical grounds Process theology rejects unlimited 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 deity. The idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "being is power." My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power. — Plato, 247E [10] From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues 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 be absolute? — Hartshorne, 89 The argument can be stated as follows: 1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency. 2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator. 3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power. For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at last some of their own defenses and agenda. Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it 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 articulated by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological system known as process theology. Scriptural grounds In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated "...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty" [11]). Although much of the narrative of the Old Testament describes the Judeo-Christian God as interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally through force. However, it could further be argued that the ability to conflict with truth is not an appropriate representation of accepted definitions of power, which negates the assertion that a deity does not have infinite powers. Many other verses in the Christian Bible do assert omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity. Some such verses are listed below: Psalms 33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shadday" [12]) Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? At his command a storm arose and covered the sea. (Psalm 107:25) Several parts of the New Testament claim Jesus to be one with the Father, who is omnipotent, and others show Jesus to have some separation from the Father and even self-imposed limitations on his power. (Gospel of John) Paradoxes Main article: Omnipotence paradox Belief that omnipotence exists in any form can arguably be disproved. A classical example goes as follows: "Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock."[13] This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature - see liar paradox. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not a deity can pose a question to which the deity would not know the answer. Within the Biblical context, God is almighty (not omnipotent) because there is no other entity that can thwart Him in whatever he decides to do. Therefore, the proper questions relative to God's power, would be: (1) Can any other entity (or alleged deity) create a rock too heavy for God to lift and (2) Can God create a rock too heavy for any other entity (or deity) to lift? The answers are no and yes[citation needed]. Thus, no other entity (or deity) can exert any power over God and claim to be more powerful than God[citation needed]. Augustine, in his City of God, argued, instead, that God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent: For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.[14] Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God. This question is in itself and in many forms answered by its own context for which it was questioned. He created you, the rock that he can move but He will not. (Free will) This theory has no individual creator, but the 'center' of the creation of this theory has agreed to appear as 'TF'. TF argues that there is no "can't" in omnipotence, if there was a "can't" then it is not omnipotence. God cannot be unable to do anything, or it is not omnipotence, even if the effect would make God unomnipotent. If he lifts the rock, he loses omnipotence, since he did not manage to create the unmoveable rock. If he cannot lift the rock, then omnipotence will have been lost as he could not lift the rock. Therefore, a researcher theorized that if in a situation where an unmoveable force meets with an irresistible force(omnipotence), the omnipotence will negate itself. In other words, omnipotence has the power to defy itself, and in turn, it will lose its omnipotence. This would also mean that the unmoveable rock can be moved by another force, as if omnipotence could not move it, omnipotence does not exist, which means that the unmoveable rock can be moved, for it was not created unmoveable. To make an unmoveable for, you need to omnipotence. If the latter does not exit, then the same holds true for the former. The final theory was that there will either be one of two effects, and TF states the latter being more likely. Effect one: Nothing happens. The forces will negate, making one all power force be non all power, which makes the second non all power as well. Effect two: The forces will create an energy in which explodes on itself, which means that the forces cannot collide, and the power from the forces are negated. The energy will have uncertain effects on the area in which it was released. This is also the same theorists idea of what forces had created the big bang. The instant an omnipotent force is created, it cannot hold itself, making it nonomnipotent. In short, the theorist believes there was an UnGod (non omnipotent omnipotence) at the beginning, for it was omnipotent and nonomnipotent at the same time, making the UnGod expand, the energy exploding to create the universe. If this was true, then our theory of God is actually the UnGod. This means that God, or UnGod, is in fact all around us, as well as the fact that we are the UnGod, because we were his energy. This theory further implies that there is no governor of the universe, and the power of this UnGod did create us, but there was no 'plan'. This means that if a paradox is created in physical form, there could be another of what we call the 'big bang'. Uncertainty and other views All the above stated claims of power are each based on scriptual grounds and upon empirical human perception. This perception is limited to our senses. The power of a deity is related to its existence.There are however other ways of perception like: reason, intuition, revelation, divine inspiration, religious experience, mystical states, and historical testimony. According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object.[15] So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently taking actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity's powers.[16] Since the current laws of physics are only known to be valid in this universe, it is possible that the laws of physics are different in parallel universes, giving a God-like entity, more power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since the laws of physics may be different in other universes, and accordingly [17] making this entity omnipotent. Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of empirical correlation. To the extreme there are theories about realms beyond this multiverse (Nirvana, Chaos, Nothingness). Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by René Descartes [18] He issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Allowing assumption that a deity exists, further debate may be provoked that said deity is consciously taking actions. It could be concluded from an emanationism[19][20] point of view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply flows of divine energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with qi is often seen as a river;[21] Dharma (Buddhism) the law of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.) Pantheism and/or panentheism sees the universe/multiverse as 'the body of God', making 'God' everybody and everything. So if one does something, actually 'God' is doing it. We are 'God's' means according to this view. In the Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is in some ways equivalent to a deity or the logos. The Tao is understood to have inexhaustible power, yet that power is simply another aspect of its weakness. See also Magical thinking Problem of evil References ^ eg St Augustine City of God ^ a b This is a consistent theme of Polkinghorne's work, see eg Polkinghorne's Science and Religion.[page needed] ^ "Summa Theologica". Ccel.org. http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25A3THEP1. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ Edmund Bergler, in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., The Psychology of Gambling (London 1974) p. 176 ^ Robin Skinner/John Cleese, Families and how to survive them (London 1994) p. 91 ^ Sigmund Freud, Case Histories II (PFL 9) p. 113 ^ Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (London 1946) p. 509-10 ^ Adam Phillips, On Flirtation (London 1994) p. 18 ^ Infantile Omnipotence ^ http://philosophy.eserver.org/plato/sophist.txt ^ "Strong's Greek Dictionary: 3841. pantokrator (pan-tok-rat'-ore)". Strongsnumbers.com. http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3841.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ "Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 7706. Shadday (shad-dah'-ee)". Strongsnumbers.com. http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7706.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ ["The Paradox of Stone," The Philosophical Review, 76 (1976), 75f.] The argument is medieval, dating at least to the 12th century, addressed by Averroës and later Thomas Aquinas. ^ "City of God, Book 5, Chapter 10". Ccel.org. 2005-07-13. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ brahmano hi pratisthaham, Bhagavad Gita 14.27 ^ Since this article deals on the all power of a deity, it would be logic to assign deities to both sexes. Since having only one sex would make a deity less powerful and thus no longer all-powerful. This article is also not (only) on omnipotence of the biblical God, there are other monotheistic religions who consider their God having both sexes (Shaktism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism). These aspects are not meant literally, but are aspects of divinity to illustrate a duality just as the Tao in Taoism consists of yin and yang. Also an anthropocentric perspective seems at odds with many philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc,. ^ "String Theory and Parallel universes". Pbs.org. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ "Descartes' Ontological Argument". Plato.stanford.edu. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ "Catholic view on emationism". Newadvent.org. 1909-05-01. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05397b.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ M.Alan Kazlev. "Hindu view on emationism". Kheper.net. http://www.kheper.net/topics/religion/Hindu_emanationism.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-07.  ^ Tao Te Ching Chapter LXI Verse 140 Comments on the Tao Te Ching Further reading Augustine, City of God and Christian Doctrine C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God Plato, Sophist Tertullian, Against Praxeas Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica External links Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry "Does God Observe the Law of Contradiction? ... Should We?" by Richard Pratt, professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary Omnipotence and Free Will in Judaism Problems with Divine Omnipotence Wikimedia Foundation. 2010. Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу Synonyms: Almighty power / God, the Omnipotent / Unlimited power Old Fashioned Objectivity (philosophy) Look at other dictionaries: omnipotence — [ ɔmnipɔtɑ̃s ] n. f. • 1387; bas lat. omnipotentia ♦ Didact. Puissance absolue, sans limitation. ⇒ toute puissance. Pouvoir absolu. ⇒ absolutisme, domination, suprématie. L omnipotence militaire. ⊗ CONTR. Impuissance. ● omnipotence nom féminin… …   Encyclopédie Universelle Omnipotence — • The power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006. Omnipotence     Omnipotence      …   Catholic encyclopedia Omnipotence — Om*nip o*tence, Omnipotency Om*nip o*ten*cy, n. [L. omnipotentia: cf. F. omnipotence.] 1. The state of being omnipotent; almighty power; hence, one who is omnipotent; the Deity. [1913 Webster] Will Omnipotence neglect to save The suffering virtue …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English omnipotence — index force (strength), influence, predominance, supremacy Burton s Legal Thesaurus. William C. Burton. 2006 …   Law dictionary omnipotence — (n.) 1560s, from L.L. omnipotentia almighty power, from omnipotentem (see OMNIPOTENT (Cf. omnipotent)). Related: Omnipotency (late 15c.) …   Etymology dictionary omnipotence — [äm nip′ə təns] n. [MFr < LL omnipotentia] 1. the state or quality of being omnipotent 2. an omnipotent force 3. [O ] God …   English World dictionary Omnipotence — La Création d Adam, représentée par Michel Ange sur le plafond de la chapelle Sixtine L omnipotence ou la toute puissance (du bas latin de omnipotentia, composé de omnis «tout» et de …   Wikipédia en Français OMNIPOTENCE — s. f. Toute puissance. L omnipotence est un des attributs de Dieu.   Il se dit, particulièrement, de La faculté de décider souverainement en certaines matières. Omnipotence parlementaire. L omnipotence du jury …   Dictionnaire de l'Academie Francaise, 7eme edition (1835) omnipotence — (o mni po tan s ) s. f. 1°   Toute puissance. L omnipotence divine. 2°   Faculté de décider souverainement en certaines matières. L omnipotence du jury. HISTORIQUE    XVIe s. •   Concevez l homme accompaigné d omnipotence, vous l abysmez ; il… …   Dictionnaire de la Langue Française d'Émile Littré omnipotence —    One naively assumes that omnipotence is the power to do anything. But this definition immediately runs into trouble: God is omnipotent and yet there appear to be actions that God lacks the power to do God does not have the power to learn or to …   Christian Philosophy 18+ © Academic, 2000-2024 Contact us: Technical Support, Advertising Dictionaries export, created on PHP, Joomla, Drupal, WordPress, MODx. Mark and share Search through all dictionaries Translate… Search Internet Share the article and excerpts Direct link … Do a right-click on the link above and select “Copy Link”