The all-powerful being whether they be fictitious, legitimate or suppositional; is often encased by an atmosphere of queries. There are many different interpretations of what such an almighty being would be able to do. But first we must address the question of who we are speaking of. Western religions, over eastern faiths such as Hinduism and Buddhism, are often monotheistic in their descriptions of the almighty. These ideas are clearly laid out in the holy books of these religions, “he is excellent in power,” (Job 37:23, 1885, p. 553), “He who is able to do all things,” (S. 22:6 Hilali-Khan, English translation of the Noble Quran, no date). But there are alternatives to these scriptures that provide us with an explanation of God’s significant
…show more content…
Therefore, we must define omnipotence in a manner of which saves the power of the almighty. Omnipotence could be defined as that of being able to do anything logically possible that a perfect being would do. This is clearly an improvement of prior attempts to define what it means to be omnipotent, as it removes the possibility of weakness and replaces it with “correct” actions that appeal to a moral compass to steer this omnipotent being into the light of goodness. This addition to the description of an omnipotent being does help with the progression of being able to ascribe a power value to omnipotence. But yet again we indeed find ourselves needing to delve deeper. Instead of asking what an omnipotent being is, we are now puzzled with what we consider a perfect being to be. This definition, whilst it does provide a criterion for which a power value may be derived, requires a form of prior knowledge of what is logically possible for a perfect being to do. Not only do we have to struggle with this, it is possible that this definition of omnipotence leads to circular reasoning. This circularity is derived from the definition of perfect, if we ascribe omnipotence as part of perfection then we arrive at a dead …show more content…
The definition argues that we are not always talking about power in the conventional sense and instead when we consider omnipotence it is not as simple as it seems. Not only this, but when explaining God only in terms of omnipotence it could be deemed as intrinsically flawed. The paradox of the stone is a critique that often used to oppose the speculated unlimited power of God. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? “if he can perform the feat, then let us suppose that he does… Then we are supposing God to have brought about a situation in which he has made something he cannot [lift],” a clear logical impossibility. If we eschew with describing God in terms of power then we can discuss that God only lacks the power, skill, opportunity, determination or moral capability to perform the act. It does not directly follow that there is some power God lacks. Actions such as creating a married bachelor do not even present a possible candidate for action as they’re itself illogical, there is no loss of
Therefore, we must define omnipotence in a manner of which saves the power of the almighty. Omnipotence could be defined as that of being able to do anything logically possible that a perfect being would do. This is clearly an improvement of prior attempts to define what it means to be omnipotent, as it removes the possibility of weakness and replaces it with “correct” actions that appeal to a moral compass to steer this omnipotent being into the light of goodness. This addition to the description of an omnipotent being does help with the progression of being able to ascribe a power value to omnipotence. But yet again we indeed find ourselves needing to delve deeper. Instead of asking what an omnipotent being is, we are now puzzled with what we consider a perfect being to be. This definition, whilst it does provide a criterion for which a power value may be derived, requires a form of prior knowledge of what is logically possible for a perfect being to do. Not only do we have to struggle with this, it is possible that this definition of omnipotence leads to circular reasoning. This circularity is derived from the definition of perfect, if we ascribe omnipotence as part of perfection then we arrive at a dead …show more content…
The definition argues that we are not always talking about power in the conventional sense and instead when we consider omnipotence it is not as simple as it seems. Not only this, but when explaining God only in terms of omnipotence it could be deemed as intrinsically flawed. The paradox of the stone is a critique that often used to oppose the speculated unlimited power of God. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? “if he can perform the feat, then let us suppose that he does… Then we are supposing God to have brought about a situation in which he has made something he cannot [lift],” a clear logical impossibility. If we eschew with describing God in terms of power then we can discuss that God only lacks the power, skill, opportunity, determination or moral capability to perform the act. It does not directly follow that there is some power God lacks. Actions such as creating a married bachelor do not even present a possible candidate for action as they’re itself illogical, there is no loss of