Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute
omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. 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. The presence of all these properties in a
single entity has given rise to considerable theological debate, prominently including
the problem of theodicy, the question of why such a deity would permit the manifestation
of evil.
Meanings The term omnipotent has been used to connote
a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature.
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.
A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to
bring about in that situation. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds
with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to
omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
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 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. 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.
Scholastic definition St. Thomas Aquinas, OP acknowledged difficulty
in comprehending the Deity's power: "All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult
to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the
precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however,
we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this
phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things
that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent." In the scholastic
understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations
or restrictions. A proposition that is necessarily true is one whose negation is self-contradictory.
"It is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence involves the contradiction
that God cannot do all that He can do; but the argument is sophistical; it is no contradiction
to assert that God can realize whatever is possible, but that no number of actualized
possibilities exhausts His power. Omnipotence is perfect power, free from all mere potentiality.
Hence, although God does not bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish, His
power must not be understood as passing through successive stages before its effect is accomplished.
The activity of God is simple and eternal, without evolution or change. The transition
from possibility to actuality or from act to potentiality, occurs only in creatures.
When it is said that God can or could do a thing, the terms are not to be understood
in the sense in which they are applied to created causes, but as conveying the idea
of a Being possessed of infinite unchangeable power, the range of Whose activity is limited
only by His sovereign Will". St. Thomas explains that:
"Power is predicated of God not as something really distinct from His knowledge and will,
but as differing from them logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion of a principle putting
into execution what the will commands, and what knowledge directs, which three things
in God are identified. Or we may say, that the knowledge or will of God, according as
it is the effective principle, has the notion of power contained in it. Hence the consideration
of the knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause
precedes the operation and effect." Omnipotence is all-sufficient power. The adaptation
of means to ends in the universe does not argue, as J. S. Mill would have it, that the
power of the designer is limited, but only that God has willed to manifest His glory
by a world so constituted rather than by another. Indeed the production of secondary causes,
capable of accomplishing certain effects, requires greater power than the direct accomplishment
of these same effects. On the other hand even though no creature existed, God's power would
not be barren, for "creatures are not an end to God." Regarding the Deity's power, medieval
theologians contended that there are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot
do. 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 acts of creatures 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 capacity to sin, for example,
is not a power but a defect or infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing
impossibilities, e.g. making square circles, St. Thomas says that "everything that does
not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect
of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come
within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.
Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.
Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: 'No word shall be impossible with
God.' For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can
possibly conceive such a thing." 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"'. 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'. 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'. 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'. 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' - as opposed to whatever 'prematurely forces it out of its narcissistic
universe'. 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 open theism, deities are said to act in the world through persuasion, and not
by coercion. 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
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 least 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. 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". 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. 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.
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. Paradoxes
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." 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.
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. So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently
taking actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity's powers.
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 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. Also trying to develop a theory to explain,
assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent,
in a Cartesian sense, would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by
René Descartes He issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy. This view
is called universal possibilism. 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 point of view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply
flows of divine energy the law of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.) Pantheism
and pandeism see the universe/multiverse itself as God, while 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
Counterdependency Criminals from a sense of guilt
Problem of evil References
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
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
Logical Truth and Omnipotence Omnipotence and Free Will in Judaism