Is God omnipotent?

[prothero]

Without resorting to ineffable mystery; or the suspension of reason and logic. Philosophy is after all the application of reason to the problems of existence.
I wish an explanation from those who maintain that god must be omnipotent to be god: for the following facts:

The universe appears to be 14 billion years or more old.
The earth appears to be 4.5 billion of so years old.
Life has gradually developed on the planet over billions of years.
Man has been around for maybe one or two million years. If the entire history of the universe is regarded as a 24 hr day man has been around less than a minute and civilized for only a few seconds.
There have been multiple mass extinctions on the planet in which a majority of living things have been wiped out by natural disasters. Evolution is full of extinctions and dead ends even leaving the mass extinctions out.

Now I ask you if god is omnipotent, and this world was created as some kind of stage for the drama of creation, fall and redemption of man; or some kind of training ground for the soul of man; does the age of the universe, the age of the planet, the arc or trajectory of life and the final appearance of man look like the work of an omnipotent being who is subject to no constraints or setbacks whatsoever and knows the future in every detail.

The entire notion of divine omnipotence is at odds with the facts surrounding cosmic and biological evolution.

Mind you: I am not an atheist, I believe in god and in the divine; in transcendent values and ultimate purpose. It is just that I see little reason to maintain that god is omnipotent as opposed to god struggles to achieve value (order, harmony, and intensity of experience) against the forces of chaos and destruction. In other words I have a process view of divine nature and divine action in the world. My vision of god involves acting through nature and natural process to achieve value in the world. I can not understand how the traditional orthodox notion of a immutable, impassive, omnipotent, omniscient, god can be applied to the facts of the modern world.

[Didymos Thomas]

Are you assuming that God is a being?

That seems to be the biggest problem when people talk about God and God's properties - we tend to speak of God as a being.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Are you assuming that God is a being?

That seems to be the biggest problem when people talk about God and God's properties - we tend to speak of God as a being.

No I am not. I am assuming god is the source of order, harmony, reason and values. I am also assuming we must at least in the philosophy of religion have some rational conception of the divine. I acknowledge all such conceptions will be partial and incomplete but ineffable mystery or transcendent beyond any human ability of thought, language or expression does not seem to be in keeping with philosophical speculation.

Also all powerful seems like a property of "being". In fact one could ask if god is all powerful and other actualities have "no power" are there any other "beings" than god. Some degree of independence and power seem necessary attributes of "being". In any event I see "omnipotence" as a theological mistake especially in the modern world.

[Krumple]

Actually I'm going to take a page from someone who said it best.

"god is anything you want god to be, it doesn't even need to make sense because you will convince yourself of it regardless."

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Krumple

Actually I'm going to take a page from someone who said it best.

"god is anything you want god to be, it doesn't even need to make sense because you will convince yourself of it regardless."

Well actually I respect agnostics and atheists and consider their position rational, but for the purposes of the thread one needs to at least consider the possibility that the "divine" exists and that it has attributes. If the divine exists does it need to be omnipotent? In fact is the notion of an omnipotent divine compatible with our knowledge of the history and nature of the universe as we understand it in the modern age? Could a non omnipotent entity still be considered god and an entity worthy of praise and worship?

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by prothero

Well actually I respect agnostics and atheists and consider their position rational, but for the purposes of the thread one needs to at least consider the possibility that the "divine" exists and that it has attributes. If the divine exists does it need to be omnipotent? In fact is the notion of an omnipotent divine compatible with our knowledge of the history and nature of the universe as we understand it in the modern age? Could a non omnipotent entity still be considered god and an entity worthy of praise and worship?

Alright, fair enough, but here is a question for you.

Could you stand in front of a starving child and not do anything to help them? If you have compassion for that child wouldn't you have more compassion than a person who did nothing?

I would gladly worship even a person who could transcend my level of compassion, which is to say, it's not all that much. But to actually be the cause of that child's suffering because of creating a world in which a child could suffer, there is no attribute for compassion awarded if such is the case. Oh wait maybe that child is suppose to suffer, because it is up to you not a god to do something about it.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Krumple

Alright, fair enough, but here is a question for you.

Originally Posted by Krumple

Could you stand in front of a starving child and not do anything to help them? If you have compassion for that child wouldn't you have more compassion than a person who did nothing?
I would gladly worship even a person who could transcend my level of compassion, which is to say, it's not all that much. But to actually be the cause of that child's suffering because of creating a world in which a child could suffer, there is no attribute for compassion awarded if such is the case. Oh wait maybe that child is suppose to suffer, because it is up to you not a god to do something about it.

Well you have been participating in the "why does god permit evil" thread.

Part of the point about god not being omnipotent, is that a god who is not omnipotent is not necessarily responsible for the "evil" in the world. In fact if god brought order to the formless void (which is what it says in genesis) instead of creating ex nihilo (from nothing) then one could adopt Plato's position

“Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him.” Plato Republic II 379

In this view without god the universe would still be chaos and formless void incapable of the actualization of anything good or of value. One can attribute order, harmony, complexity, life, mind and experience to the influence of divine will on the formless void. God works through nature and natural process but chaos and disorder still have their own “power” and resist divine will. Thus evil (destruction, chaos and disorder) are inherent in the nature of the world not part of the divine will or divine plan.

I do not necessarily want to repeat the “why does god permit evil” thread. I am more interested in why people think “omnipotence” is a required attribute of divine existence and how they square or rationalize divine omnipotence with our other knowledge about the world.

The assumption of divine omnipotence is what creates the problem of evil. It is the assumption or necessity of divine omnipotence that I am questioning.

[salima]

excellent point, prothero. i have thought for some time that god would not be omnipotent, or whatever it is we are discussing in case he isnt even there. you have articulated it far better than i was ever able to do.

i also have questioned the notion that he deserves or commands praise and worship. i think it would make sense to try and stamp out the habit human beings have of praising and worshipping all over the place, maybe the messages to stop doing that and put it all on 'god' was for that reason. in other words, put it on the transcendent part of nature rather than the manifestation you see before you, because there really is nothing worthy of praise or worship in this world that is physical. music is worthy of praise, etc...and in art, rather than the picture it is the thought and inspiration behind the picture that is possessed of value, not the picture which will only decay and fall to ruin like we will eventually.

so while we are on this subject, can you explain to me what would be the logic behind the 'god loves us' theory? i mean, i sense things rather than figure them out most of the time. i feel a sense of benevolence ... albeit, far far away. but it is there and comes out every now and then. so what is that? i dont see god as a being either, though it is possible i suppose-but how would something without being a being have any compassion or benevolence? or do i attempt to identify something i perceive but cant recognize as the closest thing in my experience that it resembles? even so, what would it be?

[prothero]

Salima this is in response to your thoughtful queries, it is the best I can do. I hope it suits your intuitions and provides something of value to you. It is way off the OT but I wanted to respond to your questions.

Originally Posted by salima

i also have questioned the notion that he deserves or commands praise and worship.

I have a very Platonic notion of the divine. I think the divine is the source of possibilities of value in the world and divine influence (persuasion) is responsible for the actualization of value in the world. Thus I give god respect and credit for the intrinsic value and beauty of the world although the physical world never completely or perfectly represents the divine aim or the ideal form. I do think god deserves praise although god is not a “being” who in any way needs or desires our worship or praise. Religion is for man not for god.

Originally Posted by salima

Because there really is nothing worthy of praise or worship in this world that is physical. music is worthy of praise, etc...and in art, rather than the picture it is the thought and inspiration behind the picture that is possessed of value, not the picture which will only decay and fall to ruin like we will eventually. .

I view the divine aim the divine purpose as the creation of value (harmony, order, and intensity of experience, life, and mind) and art and music as among the highest possible forms of experience, value and creativity. Everything in the material world is subject to decay and loss but the experience in this world is perfectly realized and preserved in the divine life. The divine purpose, the divine life, the divine experience is one of creative advance of intensity of experience and to achieve this aim requires struggle and sacrifice against the forces of primordial chaos (the void). God is actively engaged with the world (not impassive, immutable). Gods experiences the world. The ultimate value is creativity. The ultimate metaphysic is “becoming” not “being”. This material world is but an imperfect emanation or manifestation of the divine ideal or god’s primordial nature.

Originally Posted by salima

so while we are on this subject, can you explain to me what would be the logic behind the 'god loves us' theory? …i feel a sense of benevolence ... albeit, far far away. but it is there and comes out every now and then.

I think god is good and loving but not in the traditional or orthodox way. God is not “personal”. God will not save you or answer your prayers. Your life is valuable insofar as it contributes to the creation of positive value and experience in this world. God is benefited insofar as you further the divine aim (creation of value) and suffers insofar as you (with your power and freedom) reject the divine possibilities offered to you. God has created a world in which much of value can be created and experienced but not without significant risk of loss, pain and suffering. There is no real reward without risk. There is no capacity for intensely positive experience without equal capacity for profound suffering. Man is of immense value in the world because he is capable of such intense experience and of such creative activity. Man contributes much to novelty and creativity and thus to value in the world but with this positive capacity comes the capacity for much evil and much suffering. Sin is alienation or separation from god, missing the mark, failure to listen to the divine lure, the divine persuasion, ignoring the divine possibility. God dwells on the tender elements of the world and takes into the divine experience all experience from all creatures both delight and pain. God is good and the relationship between god and the world is one of love (agape).



I am straying far from my original theme in the OT. The point of abandoning omnipotence is to open up the possibility of seeing the divine nature and divine action in the world from a different perspective. In fact I think most of the medieval scholastic attributes of god are in error but I started with omnipotence.

[salima]

Originally Posted by prothero

Salima this is in response to your thoughtful queries, it is the best I can do. I hope it suits your intuitions and provides something of value to you. It is way off the OT but I wanted to respond to your questions.

I have a very Platonic notion of the divine. I think the divine is the source of possibilities of value in the world and divine influence (persuasion) is responsible for the actualization of value in the world. Thus I give god respect and credit for the intrinsic value and beauty of the world although the physical world never completely or perfectly represents the divine aim or the ideal form. I do think god deserves praise although god is not a “being” who in any way needs or desires our worship or praise. Religion is for man not for god.

I view the divine aim the divine purpose as the creation of value (harmony, order, and intensity of experience, life, and mind) and art and music as among the highest possible forms of experience, value and creativity. Everything in the material world is subject to decay and loss but the experience in this world is perfectly realized and preserved in the divine life. The divine purpose, the divine life, the divine experience is one of creative advance of intensity of experience and to achieve this aim requires struggle and sacrifice against the forces of primordial chaos (the void). God is actively engaged with the world (not impassive, immutable). Gods experiences the world. The ultimate value is creativity. The ultimate metaphysic is “becoming” not “being”. This material world is but an imperfect emanation or manifestation of the divine ideal or god’s primordial nature.

I think god is good and loving but not in the traditional or orthodox way. God is not “personal”. God will not save you or answer your prayers. Your life is valuable insofar as it contributes to the creation of positive value and experience in this world. God is benefited insofar as you further the divine aim (creation of value) and suffers insofar as you (with your power and freedom) reject the divine possibilities offered to you. God has created a world in which much of value can be created and experienced but not without significant risk of loss, pain and suffering. There is no real reward without risk. There is no capacity for intensely positive experience without equal capacity for profound suffering. Man is of immense value in the world because he is capable of such intense experience and of such creative activity. Man contributes much to novelty and creativity and thus to value in the world but with this positive capacity comes the capacity for much evil and much suffering. Sin is alienation or separation from god, missing the mark, failure to listen to the divine lure, the divine persuasion, ignoring the divine possibility. God dwells on the tender elements of the world and takes into the divine experience all experience from all creatures both delight and pain. God is good and the relationship between god and the world is one of love (agape).

I am straying far from my original theme in the OT. The point of abandoning omnipotence is to open up the possibility of seeing the divine nature and divine action in the world from a different perspective. In fact I think most of the medieval scholastic attributes of god are in error but I started with omnipotence.

i sense all these things, but i feel so lame when i try to say it myself. and i dont think anyone who hasnt sensed them can possibly take any of it seriously. i guess if one has sensed agape, and knows it not to exist on this earth, then it must also be subjective proof of another realm. but only for the one who has had the experience of course.