Omnipotence

Last Modified: 12/18/94

One of the attributes most commonly associated with god is that of
omnipotence. Christianity and Judaism certainly share the attribute of
positing an all-powerful god.

One problem with god's alleged omnipotence is that it conflicts with his
alleged omnibenevolence. If god is all good he is incapable of evil. If he
is incapable of evil, he cannot do anything. His nature acts to prevent him
from a large portion of possible activities that might otherwise be open to
him.

The notion of omnipotence tries to tell us in some part what god is and in
some part what god is not; god is power without limits. The question for
atheists is, is omnipotence consistent with theoretical possibility?

The first problem we encounter is in deciding just which limits on power god
is not supposed to possess. Surely god cannot create a married bachelor. If
one claimed he could create an impossibility, that would make him himself
impossible.

A common explanation use by theists is the ``Technicolor'' theory of
omnipotence, that is, god can do anything humans can imagine -- anything you
could see in a movie. The problem with this formulation is that it is
unclear at what level of detail the imagination must be possible.

I can image a dog giving birth to cats, but I cannot imagine the process in
detail. If I try, I inevitably envision implanting cat embryos in the dog,
something man can do. Worse, if man's imagination is limited by man's
nature, why should god's power be limited the same way?

If we propose an omnipotent entity, one notion immediately disappears --
causality. If an omnipotent entity exists, all possible future actions are
open to all possible entities. In fact, the clear evidence of identity in
the cosmos (and even of `design' in the cosmos) weighs against the notion
that an omnipotent being exists.

     ``[W]hat is meant by design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means
     to an end. But the necessity for contrivance -- the need of
     employing means -- is a consequence of the limitation of power.
     Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere
     word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means
     have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs
     them has not. Otherwise that are not means but an encumbrance. ...
     Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and
     there is no room for them in a being for whom no difficulties
     exist.'' -- John Stuart Mill

So what is the nature of god's omnipotence? It is power without means, power
without ``cause'' -- for how would god cause a universe to be created out of
nothing?

Far from being a positive statement about god's nature or the type of power
with which we are familiar magnified to a tremendous degree, god's alleged
omnipotence is just a ruse. What is really being said is that an unknowable
mysterious being does things in an unknowable mysterious way, without cause,
means, or process. As such it can never make any contribution to man's store
of knowledge.
END*************************************************************************