Omnipotence means all-powerful. In Mathew Jesus says, “With God all things are possible.”
Descartes postulated that God could do absolutely anything, even that which was logically
impossible. He could make 2+2=5 or make a square circle as he has no limits. God is the source of
logic and can replace it; the laws of mathematics only exist in the way that they do because God
created them that way, and can change or override them whenever he wants. To suggest that God
must conform to the laws of logic is incompatible with the ontological argument and Descartes idea
of God ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived.’ If God is bound by the laws of logic it suggests
that they existed before God and that he must follow them. As humans we cannot fathom how a
self-contradictory God can exist but that is because we are limited by logic.
- This idea of God undermines Christian theodicies and reinforces the problem of evil.
Scholars argue that God could not act in any other way without depriving us of free will but
if Descartes is correct then God could facilitate free will and stop all evil. It is difficult to
reconcile this with the idea that God is perfectly loving.
- This absolute omnipotence is contradicted within the Bible which says ‘It is impossible for
God to lie’ or change his mind.
Aquinas argued that God is omnipotent in that he can do everything that is absolutely possible and
does not imply contradiction. God can do anything logically possible. If it is not logically possible then
it cannot be done, even by God. From this, God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with his
nature as this would imply contradiction. He is incorporeal and therefore cannot swim, or die, or be
tired. He is perfectly good and therefore cannot deceive or do any other form of evil.
- This suggests that God is limited by logic and his own nature making him incapable of doing
certain things.
Swinburne contends that God’s omnipotence means that God can do everything, God can do
and create all ‘things’, but self-contradictory definitions are not ‘things.’ A square circle or a
stone too heavy for God to lift are not things so God could not create them. This is not a
challenge to God’s omnipotence as God remains capable of doing and creating everything.
Vardy suggests that God created the universe in such a way that his power was necessarily limited.
The universe exists in such a finely tuned way to suit the existence of free, rational human beings
and God’s omnipotence had to be limited in order for it to remain this way. God limited his own
power in order to allow us to be free and rational, not everything that occurs in the universe is due
to the will of God. This does not undermine God’s omnipotence as nothing has limited his power
except when chose so.
Hartshorne argues that we should picture God as surpassingly great rather than totally powerful.
Omnipotence in the sense of ‘total power’ would not be a perfect quality or all that impressive as it
would mean that nothing else can put up any resistance to that power. A totally omnipotent God
would have total control over everything and nothing would be able to do anything unless God
allowed or controlled it. For Hartshorne, omnipotence means having total influence. He is not
omnipotent in the sense of being coercive but influences all that happens by offering possibilities.
We will always be limited in our understanding of God and cannot expect to understand a God who
is beyond the laws of logic that we are limited by. We cannot comprehend how God could create or
the lift the stone that he could not lift. Macquarrie questions if omnipotence is a problem of religious
language where we do not have the words to frame an adequate concept of God’s power.
Descartes postulated that God could do absolutely anything, even that which was logically
impossible. He could make 2+2=5 or make a square circle as he has no limits. God is the source of
logic and can replace it; the laws of mathematics only exist in the way that they do because God
created them that way, and can change or override them whenever he wants. To suggest that God
must conform to the laws of logic is incompatible with the ontological argument and Descartes idea
of God ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived.’ If God is bound by the laws of logic it suggests
that they existed before God and that he must follow them. As humans we cannot fathom how a
self-contradictory God can exist but that is because we are limited by logic.
- This idea of God undermines Christian theodicies and reinforces the problem of evil.
Scholars argue that God could not act in any other way without depriving us of free will but
if Descartes is correct then God could facilitate free will and stop all evil. It is difficult to
reconcile this with the idea that God is perfectly loving.
- This absolute omnipotence is contradicted within the Bible which says ‘It is impossible for
God to lie’ or change his mind.
Aquinas argued that God is omnipotent in that he can do everything that is absolutely possible and
does not imply contradiction. God can do anything logically possible. If it is not logically possible then
it cannot be done, even by God. From this, God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with his
nature as this would imply contradiction. He is incorporeal and therefore cannot swim, or die, or be
tired. He is perfectly good and therefore cannot deceive or do any other form of evil.
- This suggests that God is limited by logic and his own nature making him incapable of doing
certain things.
Swinburne contends that God’s omnipotence means that God can do everything, God can do
and create all ‘things’, but self-contradictory definitions are not ‘things.’ A square circle or a
stone too heavy for God to lift are not things so God could not create them. This is not a
challenge to God’s omnipotence as God remains capable of doing and creating everything.
Vardy suggests that God created the universe in such a way that his power was necessarily limited.
The universe exists in such a finely tuned way to suit the existence of free, rational human beings
and God’s omnipotence had to be limited in order for it to remain this way. God limited his own
power in order to allow us to be free and rational, not everything that occurs in the universe is due
to the will of God. This does not undermine God’s omnipotence as nothing has limited his power
except when chose so.
Hartshorne argues that we should picture God as surpassingly great rather than totally powerful.
Omnipotence in the sense of ‘total power’ would not be a perfect quality or all that impressive as it
would mean that nothing else can put up any resistance to that power. A totally omnipotent God
would have total control over everything and nothing would be able to do anything unless God
allowed or controlled it. For Hartshorne, omnipotence means having total influence. He is not
omnipotent in the sense of being coercive but influences all that happens by offering possibilities.
We will always be limited in our understanding of God and cannot expect to understand a God who
is beyond the laws of logic that we are limited by. We cannot comprehend how God could create or
the lift the stone that he could not lift. Macquarrie questions if omnipotence is a problem of religious
language where we do not have the words to frame an adequate concept of God’s power.
