Log in

View Full Version : The Nature of Omnipotence.


user X
2003-08-09, 19:00
Omnipotence is a difficult concept to grasp. Most people can't refrain from anthropomorphizing, and some can't venture beyond the perspective of an intrinsically limited existence, or one of an organized religion. Although my query here, is an adjunct to a Christianity-centric discussion, I would like this topic to focus on the nature of being, rather than be driven by Old Testament dictum.

Some maxims regarding Omnipotence:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

*The omnipotent being is inherently omniscient, and omnipresent, as these qualities are subordinant to power.

*Omnipresence implies that this being exists outside of the constraints of time, and is therefore neither created nor destroyed (regardless of the implication of a force higher than itself.)

*Omniscience implies that this being has total knowledge of the future.

</UL>

Given these fundamental characteristics, this being cannot have free will in the human sense. All of his future actions are fixed--by virtue of the fact that he has complete knowledge of the future. He cannot change his mind, or alter his course of action. He must be a slave to predeterminability from the human perspective--which is trapped in the web of time, therefore the entire body of his actions must have been (been/are/will be) executed in an instant of time.

This nature of singularis absolutus also lends credence to such ancillary theories of fixed morality, absolute will and virtue, etc. The elements of good and evil, as they relate to these theories--must be subordinate to this beings will. Good and evil must be given equal shares of power, and this being cannot be the essence of either. It is, rather a single force that has dominion over both, thereby elevating the virtues of conflict to something that transcends the mortal perspective.

squidman
2003-08-09, 19:49
quote: Originally posted by user X:

*The omnipotent being is inherently omniscient, and omnipresent, as these qualities are subordinant to power.

Umm....just a minor comment, "Omnipotence" doesn't refer to power. Omnipotence refers to all-seeing. The "pote" root-word in there being the same one as in "potables."

[This message has been edited by squidman (edited 08-09-2003).]

RAOVQ
2003-08-09, 19:53
not a beliver in knowledge being power?

weasel
2003-08-09, 20:16
Excellence job user x



Correct me if I am wrong but in overly simplyfing this being. All it is a program.

I need to think about this a little more and will get back to you

Rust
2003-08-09, 21:59
quote:All of his future actions are fixed--by virtue of the fact that he has complete knowledge of the future

Knowing the future and it being "fixed" or pre-determined are completely different ideas.

An Omniscient and Omnipotent being would have the power to change his mind.

user X
2003-08-10, 01:53
They are "his actions"--in the context of "his" free will. So, if he changes his mind, then he either has fore-knowledge of the change (and therefore it isn't really a change), or he isn't omniscient, due to this gap in knowledge. Besides that, a "change" would bind him to the forces of time--thereby calling his omnipresence into question.

---Beany---
2003-08-10, 02:53
Wow, you must be real proud of writing that user x.

The real task is to write it in a way that the layman can understand, or were all those big word necessary to express your thoughts?

I can't help but think your ego got in the way of writing an enjoyable thread.

Rust
2003-08-10, 02:54
quote: then he either has fore-knowledge of the change (and therefore it isn't really a change),

It "isn't really change", Nice way of saying ______ nothing.

In all your explanation you fail to point out and realize that an omnipotent being has the power to not use his power, thus making your point almost irrelevant.

Thus no "it isn't really change" scenarios.

user X
2003-08-10, 03:07
I think the definition of "change" serves the logic of my point. And it's monosyllabic qualities should appeal to the Beanys of the world.

user X
2003-08-10, 03:08
change. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=change)

noraa_boy
2003-08-11, 10:59
User X, all those big words just to get a simple point across? Anyway, you're probably right. If we have a look at the Bible, it is apparent that God already knows that Satan will never repent. This of course begs the question of "Why the heck is God still playing along with Satan then?".