Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Is Omnipotence?
I remember hearing some variation of “Can G-d make a rock so heavy He can’t move it?” in high school. I don’t remember thinking much about it at the time. My earliest memory of having any clear thought about it is probably around 2010 when, as I recall, I answered it “Yes, and that rock is called ‘free will.'”
Which brings us to one thing normally recognized by contemporary philosophers as a reasonable limitation on omnipotence: G-d does not have the ability to break the rules of logic. That’s part of how Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga responds to atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie. In a nutshell, Mackie wonders why G-d can’t just make a perfect world with free people in it, and Plantinga replies that even omnipotence doesn’t have the power to give us freedom and force us to do the right thing at the same time.
That’s a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t clear up quite enough. Some people seem to think omnipotence means being able to do just anything. That is incorrect. Omnipotence means having unlimited power. That’s the dictionary definition.
Now it’s true that “power” can mean an ability–the power to win a race, the power to eat candy, the power to watch television like Ratbert here:
But “power,” more fundamentally, means might or strength. “Power” can mean an ability because more power often means you can do more things.
But sometimes more power means there are things you can’t do. A powerful runner has a diminished ability to lose a race while trying to win; the most powerful runner possible wouldn’t be able to do it at all.
When I’m navigating the Hong Kong MTR system and have to switch from the East Rail Line to the Kwun Tong Line, I could hardly be the last person to hike that quarter-mile through the bowels of Kowloon Tong Station even if I tried. That’s not because I have some weakness relative to whoever comes in last; it’s because I don’t.
Superman does not have the ability to be killed by a bullet when there’s no kryptonite nearby; that lack of an ability does not mean he has a weakness; it means he has extra power.
And that brings us to the tradition. Omnipotence is an attribute traditionally ascribed to G-d by a tradition, and that tradition is classical theism.
What the word “omnipotence” means is, above all, what the traditional doctrine teaches. Similarly, the term “the Trinity” means G-d according to the doctrine of orthodox Christianity–One G-d, Three distinct Persons who are G-d. Heaven knows how many people out there think “the Trinity” means one G-d with three different roles. Their confusion does not change the meaning of a term that denotes the teaching of a tradition.
What classical theism teaches about omnipotence is that G-d has unlimited power, not that he can do just anything.
People representing the tradition–like Aquinas, and like Anselm here–also explain that certain abilities are weaknesses, not strengths. E.g., the abilities to sin, lie, die, or break the rules of logic.
Being able to do things like that is not required by omnipotence. Being unable to do them is.
Anselm’s book Proslogion introduces the general idea very well, and it’s not a hard book to read (if you don’t get bogged down in the ontological argument in chapters 2 and 3). Here’s chapter 7, where Anselm explains omnipotence, and here’s my short YouTube intro to this lovely little book.
And now . . . surprise! Once we have that perspective in place, we can actually go back to that other sense of the term that caused all this trouble in the first place–“omnipotence” as the ability to do anything.
People like Anselm and Aquinas will actually welcome that definition of omnipotence–but only as long as we understand what it actually means to do something. Sinning is not in itself the doing of a thing. It’s a way of failing to do right. Lying is not a thing you do. It’s a particular way of failing to do something–to speak the truth. Dying isn’t a thing you do; it’s just a failure to keep living. Breaking the rules of logic is not a thing you do, but a particular way of failing to do a thing–to keep the rules.
Technically, an ability to do something means an ability to do a real thing–and these aren’t even real things. And, again, being able to do these things is not some limit on omnipotence; it’s actually part of what omnipotence is. (For example, see Aquinas’ Reply to Objection 2 here.)
Or so the tradition says.
And as for the overrated rock question, if you wanna take it as some sort of metaphor for free will like I once did, be my guest and answer “Yes.”
But if you want to take the question literally and apply a dictionary definition or the equivalent historical definition of omnipotence to it, then the answer is “No”: An omnipotent G-d could not have a weakness. But if G-d made Enchanted Rock in west Texas so heavy that He didn’t have the power to move it, then he would have a weakness.
But trying to think with the tradition is hard work if you’re not used to it. So here’s a suggestion:
Try to forget about the tradition for a moment, and just suppose a few simple principles:
–G-d does not have the ability to break the rules of logic,
–to have an imperfection is to have a limitation,
–and to have a limitation is to have a weakness.
Now let’s admit that a loser like me might, constrained by extreme circumstances, have a moral obligation to lie once in a lifetime. But an omnipotent being will never be constrained by such circumstances; G-d is not a loser like me. So consider this argument:
1. To tell a lie when one is not constrained by extreme circumstances is to have an imperfection.
2. To have an imperfection is to have a weakness.
3. Therefore, to tell a lie when one is not constrained by extreme circumstances is to have a weakness.
You can add one premise and extend the argument.
3. To tell a lie when one is not constrained by extreme circumstances is to have a weakness.
4. It is not possible for an omnipotent being to have weaknesses.
5. Therefore, it is not possible for an omnipotent being to tell a lie when not constrained by extreme circumstances.
If omnipotence means an omnipotent G-d should be able to tell a lie, which of those premises is wrong? Is it 1, 2, or 4?
Published in General
I have no idea.
Which rule of logic do you think those things are violating?
Jolly good. But I know no better reason to derail a thread.
Well done. I was thinking “I’m not quite dead, Sir!” from another movie.
The speed of light in a vacuum is c, and the postulates of relativity state that that is constant for every observer. If I stood atop a train in a dramatic fight sequence firing bullets at my foe then the velocity my bullet would have would be additive; v(bullet) + v(train) = speed of the bullet as measured by someone watching the train go by. But the train with its headlights thing, then either the speeding train shoots out faster than usual light, or you just can’t add velocity together like in normal physics.
Schroedinger originally proposed his famous cat in the box as a thought experiment, trying to bring quantum weirdness up to the level of everyday objects. A cat cannot be both alive and dead. That is, he was trying a reductio ad absurdum.
Waves travel in a medium. Waves along a string, waves in the water, sound waves through air, a tsunami, dominoes collapsing each other; the mechanism is universal.
But physicists ran into a problem with light waves. Light waves travel through space. But all measurements agree that light waves travel at the same velocity, without regard to the velocity of the source of the light, or the velocity of the observer.
Huh? That doesn’t make sense. It isn’t logical.
And it turns out to be a big freaking clue to how the universe works.
Is that not just evidence that light is not, strictly speaking, like a particle in every respect?
Isn’t it a huge question in physics whether anything like the dead-and-alive-cat-at-the-same-time is even the correct interpretation of the relevant phenomena? And isn’t one of the major theories that there is a state of indeterminacy prior to observation–which is to say that the cat is not yet either dead nor alive and therefore not in violation of the law of non-contradiction?
It doesn’t make sense if we presume that light definitely is a wave and that this is definitely how waves always work.
I think we should be careful not to confuse illogical with unintuitive.
Logic is a fairly specific concept. The behavior of time (and that’s really what we’re talking about) within a relativistic context is unintuitive; it isn’t illogical. That is, it doesn’t result in unresolvable contradictions based on our understanding of physics, because our understanding of physics involves more than our understanding of Newtonian physics.
Attempting to define God using logic, as Augy is doing in this post, is fraught with difficulty because God is whatever tradition declares God to be, and which attributes you choose to assert or emphasize determine what you think is logically required of him.
For example, logic seems to dictate that an infinitely loving and infinitely powerful God would not consign anyone to eternal suffering; those who believe in an eternal hell have to deal with that paradox. (I don’t think an eternal hell is biblical, but I know many disagree.) Similarly, the doctrine of the trinity defies logic — it is fundamentally illogical. (Again, I don’t think it’s actually a biblical teaching; again, most disagree. I thank Calvin and the Jesuits for that.)
I suspect that, if one applies human standards of good behavior to God, there are quite a few things that a “perfectly good” God couldn’t do while remaining perfectly good. But then, there are a lot of things that happen in the world that don’t seem good, and that an all powerful God could choose to prevent. That’s the classic problem of Christianity, the question of why evil exists and bad things happen. I didn’t find C.S. Lewis convincing in his rationalization; were I a believer, I’d find this a vexing problem indeed.
I am willing to accept that Augy and others can reconcile for themselves a God who is simultaneously omnipotent and limited in ways that I am not — e.g., from doing things that we mere mortals consider “bad.” I’m perfectly okay with them having a limited God whom they nonetheless claim is omnipotent, and jumping through verbal hoops to make that work out for them. However, I’m not willing to surrender the plain and clear meaning of the word “omnipotent” in order to help them resolve their conundrum.
Well said.
Badly said. I have attempted nothing of the sort!
All interesting topics, to be sure. And, as far as I can see, all off-topic.
You are the one surrendering the plain and clear meaning of the term. I am preserving it.
Let’s start with this: Those are two different definitions.
The first definition is the tradition’s definition. It’s also the etymology of the word. And, apparently, it’s in every dictionary. I linked already to Dictionary.com, and here’s Merriam Webster. They both define omnipotence as unlimited power.
They do not mention being able to do anything. Neither does OED. I logged into my university library to access the Oxford English Dictionary and found only the definition of omnipotence as unlimited power. OED says, “As an abstract concept: all-powerfulness, almightiness.“ That’s OED definition 1a. OED Definition 1b is this: “As an attribute of God, or of a person: the fact or quality of having unlimited or infinite power.“ (OED Definition 2 is some technical term from psychoanalysis.)
Your citation is, apparently, not OED but rather Lexico.com, which is “Powered by Oxford.”
Continued:
HR, I am actually impressed that you were able to find a dictionary giving that alternative definition!
Now of course I realize that a word can have multiple definitions. But it is not sophistry to use one of them, which is what I am doing. Of course, one thing I also did is explain how your second definition is also affirmed by the tradition with its elaborated account of what it means to do something.
But without that elaborated account, these two definitions are not consistent, since some abilities require a lack of power.
If there were any need to, I would be perfectly comfortable saying that I believe in omnipotence by one definition but not by another. (Not that I see any such need; I like the tradition.)
But your insistence on the second definition would require us to abandon the first–and the much better established–definition!
Not so.
But if it were, then at least one premise in the argument at the end of the opening post is incorrect. Which premise is it?
Did you just go there? Where no man has gone before?
Until now, I accepted that history might be re-written to bring us “Abe Lincoln, vampire fighter,” but I had seriously hoped we’d be able to avoid “Son of God, vampire fighter.”
I hadn’t thought I’d gone there, but perhaps I was mistaken.
I like to look at it this was – God is timeless and outside of time. He does not change as we do. If God were to be wicked, He would always be wicked from our point of view. He is as present at the end of the universe as its birth. Therefore, God could do evil, but he would have obviously done so throughout our experience.\
Now, the main limitation on God’s power is logic. A is never Not-A. A may be indeterminate, but a self-contradiction becomes meaningless, like saying 2+3=6. Either the statement is wrong or the elements are meaningless.
Actually, I would say that God could create a “rock too heavy” for him to lift. Increase the density and mass of rock in a universe until it collapses into a tremendous singularity, whose radius completely fills the universe. There is no place for the black hole to move, since occupies all space, and it cannot collapse further.
I wouldn’t even call that a limitation.
I get amused by statements like, “Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?” I believe he can, and the statement is true until he then in turn makes himself strong enough so he can lift it.
Logic, science, and mathematics are human constructs that attempt to understand the universe as God made it. God is above any human construct, although he once made himself into human form to teach us . . .
I understand why philosophers find it convenient for G-d to not be able to break the rules of logic.
But I find it silly. Logic is not and can not be its own impregnable edifice. That would make logic a deity in its own right.
God exists outside of and apart from the three- or four-dimensional “reality” that He has created. Before He created anything He existed. That is why He chose the name (roughly translated into human thoughts and speech) I AM. God IS the truth. This is true in a way in which He doesn’t speak the truth, or represent the truth, or even know all truth, but He IS the truth. All that is true, when boiled down, IS God alone [or is directly reflective of Him]. All the ultimate reality of the universe IS God [and the universe is a subsumed reality]. To the degree that three dimensional space (such as we can perceive it) and time, is a mere creation that follows from God’s being, and His mind and choice, and His creative act.
To ask if God can make something so heavy that He cannot lift it, is to anthropomorphize God out of His solitary uniqueness [and make Him material] and to make Him like man, and to thereby limit Him. God does not have an arm, that is either weak or strong: He exists apart from arms, and weights, and what we humans would consider to be strength. To ask this question is to ask: Is God ever boxed in by His choices, or decisions, or His actions?
And the answer is that God is never boxed in by anything. Where God is concerned, boxes don’t exist. Not even logical boxes; in that logic as real and important as it is, is a mere human representation of intellect, knowledge, and wisdom. And God is so wise that His foolishness is greater, and more accurate, and wiser than human wisdom. This is so just as God’s strength is so great that His weakness is stronger than men.
This is how the free will that God gives to man (limited such as it is) is subsumed in God’s will. That is how physics is subsumed within God’s creativity. That is why it is nonsense to ask if God can create something that He has no control over.
And besides, to show the silliness of the question, if God made a rock so heavy that he couldn’t lift it, if He wanted to, all He would have to do is lower the universe a bit. :)
Yeah, that Oxford English Dictionary thing keeps itself pretty well under wraps. ;)
I could have gone with Webster, which offers as a first meaning:
Or the American Heritage dictionary:
But I decided to go with the obscure one first.
Ok. More support for my usage of the term.
Whoever said logic is above G-d?
Well, not until the Incarnation anyway.
OP:
Try to forget about the tradition for a moment, and just suppose a few simple principles:
–G-d does not have the ability to break the rules of logic,
I reject the idea that logic is above G-d, and I think your description “That would make logic a deity in its own right” is very reasonable.
But the statement “G-d does not have the ability to break the rules of logic” does not entail that logic is above G-d.
It’s understandable that people think we have to choose between the statement that G-d is able to break the rules of logic and the statement that logic is above G-d. But those are not our only choices.
A third way (and my view) is that the rules of logic are rooted in G-d’s character. (In more detail: Logic is based in the Law of Non-Contradiction, and the Law of Non-Contradiction is itself the result of G-d’s constancy.)
Ah, the old mishap of clicking “Reply” when you’ve highlighted something else.
Actually, quantum physics is Gods way of preventing Newtonian mechanics from defining our world. If the world operated at a micro level like Newtonian mechanics describes the world, then free will wouldn’t exist-since if you considered all the factors you could predict the future (think of the world like a giant billiard table- under newtonian mechanics all the future carooming of the balls could be predicted based on the present circumstances). But since we do not live in a world of Newtonian mechanics (but live in the world of quantum physics) the future isn’t deterministic. Gods real coupe was to make the world look Newtonian on a macro level (so we could confidently predict many things in our day to day existence-like how to build a house and create a civilization) but make a world where the future wasn’t predictable. that space is created to make free will- it also mandates the existence of chaos and earthquakes etc. The price of a non deterministic world & free will is sin and natural catastrophes and birth defects….
While physics is indeed much more complex than Newton believed, I think the jury is still out on whether or not the world is deterministic.
I think there is at least one deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not as popular as indeterminacy interpretations, but then science, like religion and philosophy, isn’t supposed to be a popularity contest.
This presupposes that the only things that affect the future are subject to the laws of physics.