The Omnipotent God
I’ve heard people tell me that god is a mighty and all powerful being that has (according to them) limitless powers, that lay claim to the universe and everything. This claim has several logical problems; and while there are those who will simply use the blanket statement that god is ineffable, that is a completely baseless claim for which there is no possible evidence nor is there a way to prove it.
Not even if god came down and flexed his mighty muscle could he possibly prove his powers without first giving his witnesses the ability to see this, since he has supposedly ineffable powers that could not possibly be explained in mere words to us lowly mortals.
This is a specious claim since I could equally claim that I myself have ineffable powers and never have to prove it since my abilities would be beyond words themselves; but I wont try to delude you with such claims since I don’t actually believe I have any such capacity.
I think Christopher Hitchens said it best, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
What I will point out however is the flaws in the claims that the personal, loving god described in religious books that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. While there are parts of this claim that do work, it also creates a number of contradictions.
If you were omnipotent for example, you would have all the power in the universe; this power would be boundless, bound – not even by the universe its self.
This would give you the power to exist everywhere, which is how the omnipresence is possible, one would only assume you’d want to do so should you have such limitless powers.
The omnipotence would also make it possible to know everything since your power would enable you to know everything you could possibly want.
This all works out quite nicely, until you take the concepts a little deeper.
With omnipresence, the implication is not that you choose to exist in any location you want, but instead that you are unequivocally existing everywhere. This is a state that cannot be changed, and if it is, then you are no longer omnipresent. Omnipresence implies a lack of power, since there is no choice in the state of existence, instead you are simply everywhere at all times (and as a result, will always be there, past, present and future).
This shows a lack of power, which means you are not omnipotent.
Of course you could simply claim that omnipotence implies the ability to reduce your own powers in order to pacify this quagmire, but doing so would create a new one, you would no longer be omnipotent, not to mention the problem with reducing your limitless power would then make you limited in power, never to regain those powers again. Having the ability to regain said powers would imply you never actually lost them in the first place; you cannot simply shunt them for a short while only to have them returned at a later time.
Then there is omniscience, which implies a complete and utter lack of ignorance. There is nothing that is not known to you. Absolutely (when dealing with this sort of power, absolutes are the only means) nothing is left to chance and instead nothing comes to a surprise to you since you have seen everything that has happened, is happening and will ever happen, which is a rather depressing thought, to realize your existence will never bring anything new, since you’ve already seen it all.
Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence. If you were omnipotent, you would be able to, through your limitless powers, be able to create something unknown to yourself, dismissing your omniscience. By the same token you could also create a location that you have never been or even create something that even you don’t have control over, which would dismiss your omnipresence.
Clearly, the most problematic of powers is without doubt is omnipotence, since it (besides being in conflict with its self) is incompatible with omniscience and omnipresence.
If you were however to dismiss these problems and instead focus on this limitless power instead, you run into another interesting issue. Omnipotence is all encompassing. That is to say omnipotence implies complete and utter power, bar nothing. Even a single quark is not beyond your control. As a result there is no power that you do not have. This power is exclusive and cannot be shared, because if you did, you would no longer be the controller of the power, some other would be wielding it and not yourself. This cannot happen, instead the power must be consolidated and never shared which is a problem; it shows a lack of power to be unable to do something like sharing.
You can draw one conclusion from all this: if you did in fact have omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, you would not be the loving god floating around in the heavens, but instead you would be the universe its self.
Tuesday June 26th, 2007 @ 10:12am
you speak a lot and dont say anything.
your post sucks
Tuesday June 26th, 2007 @ 11:06am
no you just don’t get it dumbass.
He’s saying there is no god, just like there is no Santa or the tooth fairy.
Tuesday June 26th, 2007 @ 1:16pm
I found it an interesting read.
Wednesday July 4th, 2007 @ 9:24pm
There’s no need to to agree with theists or deists that gods’ non-existence can not be established. When they refer to god(s) to what (if anything) are they referring?
That is, the statement ‘the god X does not exist’ can be shown to be true. It’s up to claimants to specify just what concept of god they’re playing with. (Dealing with an irrationalist or a mystic requires different approaches not discussed here.)
Some concepts are simply inconsistent. For example is the concept of god X just like the concept of the round-square? “The” round-square does not exist because its (supposed) concept is incoherent.
In the Middle Ages an attempt was made to explicate “the” concept of God’s omnipresence by recourse to an analogy drawn from plane geometry. God is like . . . a circle whose circumference is nowhere and whose center is everywhere. Clever stuff.
But there can be no such circle. Among closed plane figures, the circle shares the property of always being finite. The analogy backfires — well if God’s omnipresence is like that; then, there can be no God.
A different approach to showing conceptual limits of any concept of God also comes from the Middle Ages. “Can an omnipotent God create a stone too big for Him to lift?” To say either yes or no immediately implies that God is not omnipotent.
Language here is being misused. Absolute adjectives are always relative to some context. A context free absolute adjective describes nothing. Stretching language past it limits is a commonplace in discourse about gods.
Obviously, most theists or deists won’t immediately offer up lucid concepts of god. Though the panto-divinity: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make His (Her, Its) appearance.
Can a “negative” be proved. Sure. Sometimes.
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007
Tuesday July 10th, 2007 @ 3:15am
The bible doesn’t teach anything other than “God can do all things”.
I don’t know where you people get these ridiculous assumptions from. Theists included. The omniscience of God is not taught, only that he is able to find out what he wants.
Giving someone free will means you do not know everything at all times.
Friday July 13th, 2007 @ 3:52pm
Please explain how “The bible doesn’t teach anything other than “God can do all thingsâ€.” does not equate to omnipotence, which then by definition also implies omnipresence and omniscience. A God that is omnipotent should be omniscient by virtue of the fact that He can do all things, and because He is omniscient, He is by definition prescient, therefore not needing to “find out what he wants.” Giving mankind freewill does not automatically discount omniscience because God should be prescient about human use of freewill, if he is omnipotent, therefore omniscient, and should not be surprised by any resultant behavior. Also, if God can do all things, he should be able to be omnipresent and not bound by space-time or other rules of physics, therefore present during use of freewill before, during and when it happens, making Him omniscient and, once again, not surprised or needing to find out. So, please explain.
Sunday August 5th, 2007 @ 12:25pm
All it’s saying is that at the basest level that the three modems of control and power that god has, i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience create problems with that god existing as a god. Instead what it implies is that rather than being a god at all, that being would have to be the universe itself, since only the universe is actually omnipotent – all powerful – able to destroy and create, omniscient – knows what’s happening inside it since it is the universe, and omnipresent – is everywhere at once ( have you ever known the universe to flicker out of existence, even for a moment?). Rather than existing as a being the exists and has control over everything, god would instead exist as everything. In essence he doesn’t have to be god, he is god, because he is everything.
And just as a random tangent of thought, if god exists as the universe, and we are made up from bits of the universe, are we gods as well?
Wednesday August 8th, 2007 @ 2:11am
Three comments:
1). Unless one can prove that they know everything about everything, the claim of being able to disprove the existence of a Supreme being is futile, at best. In other words, it is impossible for an obviously finite intelligence to use an undeniably limited reasoning to conclude either that no higher form of intelligence exists, or that it can only exist under certain, comprehensible stipulations or restrictions. Either the thinker is Almighty, or not: if so, why bother argue with mortals; if not, why bother argue against The Immortal. The Supreme is, and I am not.
2). Although logic cannot disprove infinity (i.e.-reason can never out-reason reasons’ reason), it can agree with it. According to logic, nothing comes from nothing. According to science, all matter is degenerating. Therefore, matter cannot be self-existent; it cannot be it’s own sustainable source. While degrading matter is either being replaced by newly-created matter (the ‘whole’ is re-generated, but the ‘pieces’ are in a constant state of replacement–mankind continues long after the first man died), or being absorbed by and reconstituted into other matter (not necessarily re-incarnated, but simply recycled–as in plant-life being temporarily sustained by the absorbtion of elements and minerals from de-composing plants and animals, only to be consumed by another organic life-form, then deposited as compost which further fuels the cycle of life/energy continuing on through another form), some other force–than matter, which, though a partner in the process of “re-creation”, always tends to decay, never to create–initiated both the creation of and the process of re-creating matter. It is impossible for a cycle of de-composition and re-creation to be it’s own first cause, therefore, matter must be a product of, not the essence of, the non-created first cause. The universe, then, cannot be both creation and Creator.
3). Either we can never know anything about the Infinite, or we can know something about the Infinite, but never can we know everything about the Infinite. If we claim it is impossible to know anything about the Infinite, then by our own admission, we cannot affirm the non-existence of the Infinite, since such a conclusion implies absolute knowledge of the Infinite (the principle of “Thesis/Anti-thesis” cannot be used to annul the concept of “Thesis/Anti-thesis”). Additionally, the argument cannot be made that the Infinite is comprehensive or comprehensible (already implied in the definition of Infinite). So then, the rub is with the issue of defining the origin, substance, and limits of the possible knowledge of the Infinite. Any such knowledge would have to originate with the Infinite, and be transferred to the finite–due to the limitations on the finite’s ability to grasp anything more than the concept of infinity. That intentional communication, which is precluded by a desire for personal interaction, combined with the universal desire of humanity to seek for personal interaction with the Infinite, more than strongly coincides with the conclusion of an intention for relatability on the part of the Infinite. Only a Personal, Infinite Being (in contrast to multiple Infinite Beings, none of which could be purely Infinite) would intend to relate to finite beings. But what would be the substance of any such relations between finite and Infinite? And once we did begin to know something about this Personal, Infinite Being’s intention to relate to us, how specific could that knowledge possibly be? Furthermore, how would we know whether or not we had reached the limits of possible knowledge of this Personal, Infinite Being, or whether, instead, our imaginations and/or hopes had projected us into a pseudo-reality in which all of our specific dreams were fulfilled by this Entity, who has somehow begun to look and think considerably JUST LIKE US? People have been making gods in their own images ever since the beginning of recorded history, but how many of us have ever really known this Personal, Infinite Being? Only to whatever extent this Being decided to communicate Itself to us. And why would this Being initiate any communication at all if there was only the intent to tease and frustrate us? Sometimes it sure does seem like someone is just messing with us. If this Infinite Being is simply toying with us, then we are royally screwed because the most powerful Entity in existence is at best untrustworthy and unworthy of respect, and at worst, evil. But what if the being that was playing with us is NOT the Infinite and all-powerful One? What if this adversary had to answer to the One Who IS Infinite and all-powerful, this same One Who is the first cause and the last answer, Who purposed us for a relationship, and Whose purposes cannot be spoiled? That would be awesome! If only we could know it were true…
Just a few thoughts; but what do I know–I’m just finite.
Saturday August 11th, 2007 @ 8:37am
Essentially you’re just rephrasing the good old fashioned “paradox” of “Can God create a stone so heavy even He cannot lift it?”. The answer to your claims is the same as the answer to this, and it depends on whether God is Logical or Illogical.
If God is Logical, then he can do anything possible, meaning he can’t create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it/subtract from his own power/dismissing his omnipresence.
If God is Illogical, then he can create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it, then lift it anyway. He can limit his power and still be all powerful, etc.
I should probably point out that I’m an Atheist (of the sort that often gets called a militant atheist) – there are many other more valid grounds for disproving the idea of a creator god than this one.
Saturday August 11th, 2007 @ 9:58am
I actually covered that problem in the 3rd paragraph.
Can you prove/disprove that I do not have ineffable powers?
What then?
Friday August 17th, 2007 @ 7:23pm
i can agree with the statement written above and can only say that it affirms my thought that the true nature of “god” or the universe will never be understood. Religion is the attempt to wrap the human brain around an idea that is beyond our understanding. “God” and the universe at this present moment are beyond that understanding. Belief is defined as the acceptance of a statement to be true without proof or evidence. The simple question is not whether or not a “god” exist but do you personally believe in a “god.” Because if you do, then in your perception of reality he/she/it does. It is an individual state of mind that is all your own. In terms of power presence and knowledge in the mind of the person who believes in a “god” that “god” can be whatever he or she wants it to be.
Friday August 17th, 2007 @ 7:43pm
Nice, I want god to be my bestest buddy. And he’ll ride a big purple tricycle with tassels that are 10 feet long! And he’ll honk and people on the road, only his honk will sound like a firetruck! And he will give me ice cream whenever I want it! And the ice cream will be whatever flavor I want too! But no cheeries, I hate cherries!
Man, this rocks, I love god now! He can be aaaaaaanything I want him to be, and the best part is, just because I believe in him; he’s real.
Saturday September 8th, 2007 @ 8:39am
“Comment from feckineejit
Date: Tuesday June 26th, 2007, 11:06am
no you just don’t get it dumbass.
He’s saying there is no god, just like there is no Santa or the tooth fairy”
You just destroyed two of my three key beliefs in life. YOU SUCK
:-P
Saturday September 8th, 2007 @ 9:19am
It’s obvious straight away that the idea of an infinite God is logically absurd. It’s best summed up by arguments such as “can God create a rock He cannot lift?” or “can He design a question too complex for Him to answer” etc etc. It’s quite possible there are “higher beings”, and indeed this idea is much more plausible, but even then we do not assume their existence by default. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of fairies, ferengi, borg, bounty hunters or Russell’s teapot orrbiting mars (yet), so posing the question is meaningless. Imagine, then, how much more meaningless it is to “suggest” that the omnipotent God exists. But then again, look what we’ve done.
While we cannot disprove finite gods, we’ve effectively used logic to disprove the infinite version. The only problem that may occur here is if logic itself has limited power. Logic is presently the best way to understand the universe, but it may not be the only way. Also, since we construct logical arguments using language (as mathematics once was), it could be that we are limited by our language. Curiously, many literal Christians say that we lost our original, God-given language at Babel, resulting in the many myriad simpler present day languages. We think using our language too. Is it possible we just do not understand God? Perhaps He invented logic and is not bound by it.
I’m not saying for a second that I believe in the Bible, with its violence and absurdity. On the other hand we should be open to the possibilities, within reason. As Richard Dawkins has said in his TV series “Enemies of Reason”, “we should have an open mind, but not one so open that our brain falls out”. So for the moment, I’m more likely to believe we were created by aliens from planet X than the Abrahamic God, so powerless in the historical account, yet revered as having limitless power.
Tuesday September 11th, 2007 @ 4:14pm
if you have never made an effort to find God how do you know He isn’t there?
http://yesthereisagod-caddy.blogspot.com/
Tuesday September 11th, 2007 @ 5:24pm
I went to church every Sunday at 9am until I was 17. I was an altar boy for 4 years. I went to a high school run by Jesuit Priests, we had prayer every morning before class. I had religion class 3 times a week. I’ve read the bible.
God. Does. Not. Exist.
Wednesday September 19th, 2007 @ 12:02am
Using scientific rational reasoning on a religious argument is futile. Believers will insist on believing no matter how well the absurdity of their belief is explained to them. Basically I believe we cannot remove the beliefs of the gullible all we can do is try to stop them from spreading their delusion to others. i.e. place religion with drivers licensing, registering to vote and drinking alcohol and ban its instruction to minors. A nice big “Must be over 21” sign on all places of worship and an appropriate “R” or “X” rating on the bible and other similar works of fiction.
Monday September 24th, 2007 @ 6:40pm
EvilGod, I salute you. Seriously. That is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time.
But I doubt it’d ever work. Blah.
Tuesday October 23rd, 2007 @ 1:20am
Hmm.. This is all very interesting. Have any of you ever read “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene? It’s about string theory, but touches on some related subjects, if you read between the lines. Also, you might want to look up the work of Georg Cantor, a German mathematician that studied the infinite and came up with the theory of transfinite numbers. His theories, while true, are also illogical and counterintuitive. Logic is appropriate when dealing with the finite, but fails completely when dealing with the infinite. There is no absolute truth. Think about that phrase. If it were truth, it would be a truth, and therefore disprove itself. Basing one’s opinion on the results inferior tools is as great a flaw as believing in God because your Mom told you so. We simply don’t have the means to deal with the infinite yet, but the base is slowly being laid. Just as lines in the sand through thousands of years of development gave birth to the computer, logic and math will someday produce the framework for dealing with “the great ocean of truth that lies undiscovered before” us. For now, all I see is faith in nothing. On both the end of science and religion. Has Science solved humanity’s problems? Why is the majority of the world still suffering in poverty? Has Religion? Is someone that is so closed minded that they write “God. Does. Not. Exist.” really any more likely to discover the truth than someone who says “God. Does. Exist.?” You’ve gone to church 6200 times in your life. An minuscule amount compared to the billions of people that try to have some sort spiritual experience everyday. In this case, even your own experience is not a sample set large enough to produce an answer to the God question with any consequential degree of accuracy. The odds of winning the lotto are much, much slimmer, but somebody still wins every time. Not that I suggest blowing cash at the lotto; all I’m saying is that I rely on Science (referring to every area of study outside of religion) because I have nothing better, and that I’m not so arrogant as to claim that my inadequate tool has all the answers. There will likely be more unknown than known, until we manage to achieve some sort of transfinite existence.
Tuesday October 23rd, 2007 @ 8:40am
When I say “God does not exist” I am for the most part talking about the god described by religion. A deist god that is not described with any characteristics is highly improbable. It’s especially improbable that such a god would/could have created the universe. The notion that there is a God like the one found in the bible is in my opinion completely false. I would say there is a greater chance that ‘2 + 2 = 5’ than a god like that of the bible actually existing.
Friday June 5th, 2009 @ 10:17am
Almost TWO whole years, and no spelling police pointing out (let alone arresting you for) the misshit “us lowly morals”?