Omnipotence

Test yourself on Omnipotence

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

The Nature of God: Omnipotence

Omnipotence means ‘all-powerful’.

God's omnipotence in the Bible

God’s omnipotent nature is outlined in the Bible.
- God creates the world ex nihilo (from nothing).
- God speaks things into existence in Genesis 1: ‘let there be light’.

The paradox of the stone

There are some issues with the idea of omnipotence.
- One issue is known as the paradox of the stone.
The paradox of the stone poses a question ‘can God make a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?’
- If the answer is no, then there is something God cannot do.
- If He can create the stone, but can’t lift it, then there’s also something He can’t do.

The paradox of the squared circle

God cannot be all-powerful if there is something he cannot do.
Another known paradox is known as the squared circle.
- If God cannot square a circle then there is something else He cannot do.

Philosophical Explanations for Omnipotence

Because there are paradoxes that suggest that God is not omnipotent, philosophers have tried to explain exactly what it means for God to be omnipotent.

Aquinas' definition

Aquinas thought that omnipotence meant that God could do anything that was logically possible. The squared circle question - according to Aquinas - is an absurd question because the concept of a squared circle makes no sense; it is not a thing.
According to the rules of logic, it is a contradiction in terms – it is a meaningless question and results in nonsense words. God’s inability not to square a circle doesn’t reduce His omnipotence.

Descartes' definition

Descartes thought that God could do absolutely anything – possible and impossible, logical and illogical. This is because God is a ‘supremely perfect being’.
He argued that God’s existence is prior to the laws of logic (God is eternal – begotten not made), so God is not bound by those laws. God could square a circle.

Vardy & Macquarrie

Vardy & Macquarrie thought that God created the universe, but limited His power to interfere with it. This is a self-imposed limitation, done out of His love for the world.
Nothing limits God’s power but Himself. Macquarrie refers to the idea of ‘Kenosis’, meaning ‘self-emptying’ to explain that God empties out some of his powers to allow humans greater free will.
- Why would God square a circle? This would make his actions arbitrary and we couldn’t trust God.

Hartshorne

Hartshorne argues that it is better to describe God as ‘unsurpassably great’ rather than totally powerful.
He argues that absolute omnipotence as described by Descartes would not actually be a perfect quality. God’s power is not surpassed by anything in His creation, things can put up a resistance to God, but God will always be more powerful.
If nothing could put up a resistance to God, it would be like praising someone for getting first prize in a race with no competitors.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Definitions of Omnipotence

Here are the strengths and weaknesses of Thomas Aquinas', Descartes' and Vardy and Macquarrie's definitions of omnipotence.

Aquinas - strengths & weaknesses

Strengths:
- It makes no sense to accuse God of being less than omnipotent because he cannot do the logically impossible. God made the laws of logic, geometry and arithmetic of nature, so He would not make things that go against these principles (like a squared circle).
Weaknesses:
- Arguably, I can conceive of a greater being than one that can only do the logically possible: one that can do the logically impossible too. As such, it doesn’t match up with Anselm’s definition of God.

Descartes - strengths

This theory might protect God’s omnipotence best because God can square a circle, ride a bike, and do evil.
- Surely a God who can do the logically impossible is greater than a God that can only do the logically possible?
Therefore, this theory meets Anselm’s definition of God which was ‘a being than which nothing greater can be conceived’.

Descartes - weaknesses

This approach might lead to God being seen as arbitrary (random) and tyrannical (abusing His power).
If God can do absolutely anything, then He can allow us to have free will without the consequence of evil.

Vardy & Macquarrie - strengths

Their theory fits in with the idea of the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus. God became flesh out of love for His creation and He emptied himself of some of his powers to come to earth.
The theory prevents God from being a tyrant – does anything He wishes just because He can.
The theory fits in with Hick’s Vale of Soul Making theodicy (humans are imperfect; they must grow into the "likeness" of God).

Vardy & Macquarrie - weaknesses

Arguably, I can conceive of a greater being – remember Anselm defined God as ‘a being than which nothing greater can be conceived’ – than a God with self-imposed limitations.
If we are suggesting that God limited his power to allow humans to achieve the Vale of Soul Making, then why is evil so extreme? Could God not have controlled the extent of evil and still allow for soul-making?