Board index ‹ God

[Relevant]

Most have heard the idea that God cannot do what is logically impossible. It is a standard defense against many of the family of omnipotence paradoxes. God cannot do what is logically impossible; he can't make a married bachelor or 1 + 1 = three. But what if the idea of omnipotence itself is logically impossible? If the idea of omnipotence itself is logically impossible, then you either say the concept of God makes no sense, or that God isn't omnipotent.

P1. Omnipotence is unlimited power.
P2. Power is the ability to create change.
P3. Unlimited power means the ability to make any change without effort.
P4. All change requires an minimum effort of will.
C1. Points 3 & 4 contradict each other, meaning that the concept of omnipotence is logically self-contradictory.

Explanation:

1. Omnipotence is unlimited power:

This is a standard definition of omnipotence.

2. Power is the ability to create change:

Whether this is potential or actual, the ability to change things is inherent in the definition of omnipotence.

3. Unlimited power also means the ability to make a change without effort:

This is a little unintuitive to some, so let's explore the following scenario.

First Illustration:

Imagine there are multiple very powerful beings.

Being One uses 1 kilocalorie of effort to accomplish action A.
Being Two uses 1/2 kilocalorie of effort to accomplish action A.

So, the Being Two is more powerful than Being One. For any Being N, they become more powerful as they used 1/nth kilocalorie to accomplish action A.

Thus, it becomes obvious that for any being to claim omnipotence, they must reach the infinite minimum effort, which is zero.

4. All change requires a minimum effort of will:

For any change to happen, it must require at the minimum a desire to do so. If an omnipotent being did not desire such a change, it would not happen. This internal change within the omnipotent being is an effort.

Second Illustration:

Going back to the scenario of the multiple powerful beings, Being One might say "Through the mere effort of My will, I created this change!" Being Two simply says "You did only as I intended." Being Three says nothing, but is happy with the result. Whose will was done?
Who made the change happen? Who can claim the right to be declared omnipotent?

The one who willed the change was obviously the one who expended the most effort. But the one who controlled the other also expended some effort. By energy expended, the one who did nothing at all but got what they wanted demonstrated true omnipotence, for they did nothing but still achieved everything.

But what if Being Three hadn't liked the result? What would they have done? They could have expended an effort to control one of the other Beings, or made the effort to create the change themselves. But then Being Three would lose the claim to omnipotence, having expended the most effort. No matter what they did, the change requires an effort of will from someone.

Is omnipotence merely getting what you want, without effort? If so, there cannot be any changes. BUT ... omnipotence IS the ability to make changes. If you can't (not just won't, but can't) change anything, you cannot be called omnipotent by definition. Therefore the very definition of omnipotence is logically inconsistent.

Now, I can empathize with people who say "God is a mystery beyond our understanding." TBH that is probably the only valid approach to God and religion. But if you wish to claim that God is omnipotent, then you need to defend the idea that the definition of omnipotence makes logical sense.

[jimwalton]

You have answered your own dilemma by trying to write off the answer, but it doesn't work. Your case fails at every point.

Omnipotence is NOT unlimited powers you yourself said. Omnipotence has never been adequately defined. It only means that God is able to do all things that are the proper objects of His power. Omnipotence cannot do what is logically impossible. Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can act contrary to His nature. Omnipotence rejects the idea of dualism. Omnipotence really means that God's will is not frustrated in that what He chooses to do, He accomplishes because He has the ability to do it. So your definition is flawed, and therefore your argument is flawed.

Power is not only the ability to create change, but also the creation of change. We know there is potential energy and kinetic energy. The ability to create change is not power, but only the actual use power. "The ability to change things is inherent in the definition of omnipotence" is also false because you have misdefined omnipotence, and therefore point two is flawed.

"Unlimited power also means the ability to make a change without effort" is also untrue and unproved. All power requires the expenditure of effort. Your illustration is regressive and illogical because all the outworking of power requires an outworking of power, not the complete absence of effort, and therefore point three is flawed.

"All change requires a minimum effort of will" is also untrue. Since your case has failed at the first three points, there is no foundation to make this conclusion. Change requires the amount of effort commensurate with the power exerted and the goal being achieved. Your case fails at all four points.

[Dude]

> Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can act contrary to His nature.

This isn't technically true. It's only true because of the additional axiom "god cannot act contrary to his nature." With that axiom, acting contrary to his nature becomes logically impossible, but it's not part of the traditional notion of omnipotence.

> All power requires the expenditure of effort.

Not for an omnipotent being. In order for omnipotence to work, the exercise of the power either requires the exercise takes no effort, or the omnipotent being has an unlimited source of effort. God can never become "tired" in a sense.

[jimwalton]

> it's not part of the traditional notion of omnipotence.

It IS part of the traditional notion of omnipotence. You can't build a case by changing the definition and then claiming God doesn't fit the definition.

> Not for an omnipotent being.

this is also untrue. All power requires work: it's part of the traditional notion of power and kinetic energy. Power is work accomplished.

[Relevant]

> Omnipotence is NOT unlimited powers you yourself said.

Wait, what? I literally said that omnipotence is unlimited power by definition.

It's true that if you redefine omnipotence to NOT be unlimited power then my argument falls apart, because it is dependent on that definition.

I'm not following your argument against the idea that omnipotence requires the ability to change things. Are you saying that you think God can be called omnipotent but NOT have the ability to change anything? Similarly, are you saying that God expended effort in creation?

Mostly what I'm hearing from you is just "You're wrong." I'd much rather see some interesting counterarguments. As the Monty Python skit goes "That's not an argument--that's just contradiction!".

[jimwalton]

> I literally said that omnipotence is unlimited power by definition.

That is an improper definition of omnipotence. The definition of omnipotence is NOT "unlimited power."

> It's true that if you redefine omnipotence to NOT be unlimited power then my argument falls apart

I haven't redefined omnipotence, but have shown that you have redefined it just to build your case. Omnipotence has NEVER meant unlimited power. You chose to define it that way, claim that it's the "traditional" view, and then build your case on a false definition.

> I'm not following your argument against the idea that omnipotence requires the ability to change things.

I didn't make this argument. The argument I made is that power is not just the ability to do work but the actuality of doing work. The power of omnipotence is power in ability and power in action, not just power in ability.

> Are you saying that you think God can be called omnipotent but NOT have the ability to change anything?

No, I'm not saying this at all. What I'm saying is that God's omnipotence is not just the ability to change some things (not all things: He cannot change His own nature, for instance) but then also the outworking of that power (again, not in all things: He can't do what is logically inconsistent or contradictory).

> Similarly, are you saying that God expended effort in creation?

Of course He did. All power is the result of expended effort.

> Mostly what I'm hearing from you is just "You're wrong."

Then you are not reading thoroughly enough and are being too quick to blow off my arguments.

> I'd much rather see some interesting counterarguments.

I gave you those, but I'll expand on them.

Omnipotence has never been adequately defined. It doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.

• He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
• He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
• He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
• The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
• He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
• He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
• It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
• It does not imply the use of all the power of God

Another aspect of God’s omnipotence is that he is free. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself, but are simply a matter of his own free choice.

Leibnitz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”

[Dude]

> It IS part of the traditional notion of omnipotence.

No, being unable to act counter to his nature is part of omnibenevolence.

> All power requires work: it's part of the traditional notion of power and kinetic energy.

These are entirely material conceptions. The omnipotence of god is not limited by material notions of kinetic energy.

Otherwise you're bounding god by the notions of conservation of energy, in which his power could be diminished.

[jimwalton]

> No, being unable to act counter to his nature is part of omnibenevolence.

It includes aspects of both. Many have argued that if God were really omnipotent, He could change his very nature, which might mean He could be evil (contrary to omnibenevolence) but could also mean that He could not be fail to achieve His will (contrary to omnipotence).

> These are entirely material conceptions. The omnipotence of god is not limited by material notions of kinetic energy.

There are not merely material conceptions. They are ingrained in the very definition of what power is. God is not limited by material notions, but our definitions of power are commensurate with how we understand theology.

> you're bounding god by the notions of conservation of energy, in which his power could be diminished.

I am not speaking of conservation of energy, but rather the definition of power as the force exerted on something by something or someone.

[Relevant]

Thank you! I appreciate this expanded explanation. It'll take some time to process.

[Walla Walla]

Since when is God constrained to human logic?