I want to begin by saying that this post, in particular, is unfinished work. I shall be returning to it, from time to time, as I learn more. I shall, no doubt, edit most fiercely.
But if we are to discuss God's nature, it seems sensible to start with omnipotence, which is one of the most basic claims about Him. One can sympathise with the way it arose: an illiterate peasant, gazing on the power of natural phenomena such as flood and storm, volcano and earthquake, and knowing his own inadequacy in the face of such force. The God who animated these forces, He surely, was beyond both comprehension and limit.
Yet, I want to propose four ways in which God's omnipotence may be limited, and pose the question: is a God thus limited still omnipotent?
The first way is limitation by the laws of logic and reason. It seems nonsensical to say that God could create a square circle, or make 2+2 = 5. Some philosophers have argued that God is limited by these laws in all possible worlds, others, that he could create a universe in which the logic was such that a square circle was a possibility. But if so, I think it begs the question as to what else, possible in our world, might be impossible in that one: perhaps a circular circle might be impossible for Him there.
The second way is limitation by the physical laws that govern the universe. I shall return to this way in due course, when I have studied Hume on miracles. At this point I just want to say that flouting His physical laws poses two problems: the first is that it suggests that God had not got the world quite correct in the first place, a difficult thing to believe of an omnipotent God. If He needs miracles, to ‘touch up’ and detail His creation from time to time, his initial creation must have been imperfect. The second is that it would force us to believe. A God that made His presence a matter of certainty, through some certain miracle, rather than through faith, with all it’s scope for doubt, would be an eternal tyrant. His power, limitless or limited, would either way be inescapable, and an intolerable burden for imperfect humanity.
The third way is limitation by moral laws. If God is perfectly good, He cannot act in any immoral manner. This seems to be self-evident.
The fourth way is limitation by being bodiless. It makes no sense to ask if God can create a stone He cannot lift, (which is the classic paradox designed to demonstrate the limit of God's potency) because spirits and stones don’t interact. Spirits and souls do though, so God can act on us. And bodies and stones do, also, so God does have purchase on the material world, but only via us, as a medium. If God’s power is to be unlimited, it can only be because we humans have dedicated our lives to His service, without limitation.
So, there’s an outline sketch of some thoughts I shall be exploring. Omnipotence does not seem to be all it's cracked up to be. If this all interests you, in any way, feel free to comment.
But if we are to discuss God's nature, it seems sensible to start with omnipotence, which is one of the most basic claims about Him. One can sympathise with the way it arose: an illiterate peasant, gazing on the power of natural phenomena such as flood and storm, volcano and earthquake, and knowing his own inadequacy in the face of such force. The God who animated these forces, He surely, was beyond both comprehension and limit.
Yet, I want to propose four ways in which God's omnipotence may be limited, and pose the question: is a God thus limited still omnipotent?
The first way is limitation by the laws of logic and reason. It seems nonsensical to say that God could create a square circle, or make 2+2 = 5. Some philosophers have argued that God is limited by these laws in all possible worlds, others, that he could create a universe in which the logic was such that a square circle was a possibility. But if so, I think it begs the question as to what else, possible in our world, might be impossible in that one: perhaps a circular circle might be impossible for Him there.
The second way is limitation by the physical laws that govern the universe. I shall return to this way in due course, when I have studied Hume on miracles. At this point I just want to say that flouting His physical laws poses two problems: the first is that it suggests that God had not got the world quite correct in the first place, a difficult thing to believe of an omnipotent God. If He needs miracles, to ‘touch up’ and detail His creation from time to time, his initial creation must have been imperfect. The second is that it would force us to believe. A God that made His presence a matter of certainty, through some certain miracle, rather than through faith, with all it’s scope for doubt, would be an eternal tyrant. His power, limitless or limited, would either way be inescapable, and an intolerable burden for imperfect humanity.
The third way is limitation by moral laws. If God is perfectly good, He cannot act in any immoral manner. This seems to be self-evident.
The fourth way is limitation by being bodiless. It makes no sense to ask if God can create a stone He cannot lift, (which is the classic paradox designed to demonstrate the limit of God's potency) because spirits and stones don’t interact. Spirits and souls do though, so God can act on us. And bodies and stones do, also, so God does have purchase on the material world, but only via us, as a medium. If God’s power is to be unlimited, it can only be because we humans have dedicated our lives to His service, without limitation.
So, there’s an outline sketch of some thoughts I shall be exploring. Omnipotence does not seem to be all it's cracked up to be. If this all interests you, in any way, feel free to comment.
