|
|
|
|
The Omnipotence of Godby Rev. Dr. Gregory NealWhy is God God? Have you ever asked
yourself that question? Have you ever wondered, “Why is God God, and not
somebody or something else?” What makes
God God? Theologians, teachers, and preachers like me take great delight in making up all sorts of big, long, important and technical-sounding words to describe what are, in reality, rather simple, straightforward faith-concepts. One of these terms is Omnipotence. It is built from two words: Omni, which means “all;” and potent, which means “powerful.” When we speak of God’s power and strength, God’s creative majesty and wonder, we are speaking about God’s Omnipotence ... the ability of God to do that which God wants to do. Sometimes Christians, and even non-Christians, will try to claim that omnipotence means “the power to do absolutely anything.” This is somewhat misleading, as we shall subsequently see, for God’s omnipotence is totally defined by God’s Will, and not by sheer, unadulterated power. Indeed, for classical Christian philosophical theology, omnipotence is simply God’s “ability to do that which God wants done.” It is this characteristic – the ability to do what God wants to do – that makes God God. I praise God that God is all-loving, all-forgiving, and all-accepting; but these wonderful and important characteristics of God’s nature don’t make God God. God is God because God is God.[1] This idea is known as ontology: a statement of fundamental being. I am, fundamentally, a human being. My identity as a Texan, as a North American, as a descendant of European ancestry, and even as a male, minister, and Christian, is all wonderful and true … but fundamentally, I am a human being. A glass of water may be cool, pleasing to the taste, refreshing as it is being drunk, but it is, fundamentally, a glass of water. And God is, fundamentally – or, as theologians like to say (again, using another big word), ontologically – God. God is and, by virtue of what it means to be God, cannot not be. This is exactly what God said to Moses at the site of the burning bush. Moses asked: “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”[2] This is a statement of ontological being. It is sometimes also translated: “I AM that I AM” We’re not talking about Popeye the Sailor Man. The essential nature of God’s being is, indeed, ultimate being. “To be or not to be” is meaningless when one is speaking of God … God simply IS. God’s name, “I AM,” is fundamentally descriptive of the fact that God is the one who cannot not be. God is because God IS. Period. And this essential characteristic of God’s being is so because God is omnipotent. Indeed, for many theologians it is this ontological aspect of being that is the perfect expression of omnipotence. We, who are not omnipotent, can easily not be. We once were not, and we will one day cease to be in this world. But God always has been and always will be … and this is the ontological essence of God’s power. Omnipotence, for God, is the result and manifestation of God’s foundational being. Some
people love to attack this conception of God because they believe there is a
logical flaw in it.[3]
One of the classic questions that is asked of students in Philosophy 101, in
Introduction to Ethics, or in courses on Logic or in the field of Physics known
as Quantum Mechanics, is this one: Can
God make a rock so big that even God can’t move it? Think about that for a moment; it’s a
tricky question. If you answer “yes, God can make such a rock,” then
you’re going to have to explain why God’s inability to move the rock
doesn’t constitute a lack of omnipotence. If, on the other hand, you’re
going to say “no, God can’t make a rock so big that even God can’t move
it,” then you’re again forced into explaining why God’s inability to make
such a rock doesn’t constitute a lack of omnipotence. Ouch! Yes,
this is a tricky question ... it is tricky because it is a trick
question. The question is designed to pit God’s omnipotence against
itself in a contradictory framework of creation and manipulation. It is
specifically designed to try and invalidate omnipotence altogether by forcing
God to work at least two contradictory and competing actions at
the same time. In this way it is
precisely like asking: “Can
God make triangles that are round?” or “Can God make circles that have 4 equal sides at 90 degree angles to each other?” or “Can God kill Godself?” Some people take great joy in saying
that, if God lacks the ability to do any of these things, then God isn’t
omnipotent. They believe that a lack of power in any of these areas constitutes
an invalidation of God’s omnipotence. If this were as far as their argument
ran, it would be ridiculous enough, but they don’t leave it here. In an
example of arrogance that leaves even me speechless[4],
they frequently go on to assert that: “Since the Christian God is universally
described as being omnipotent, that God cannot exist!”[5] Anyone
who thinks about these questions for a while can see the flaw inherent in each.
In the first one God is asked to make round triangles ... totally disregarding
the fact that triangles aren’t, by their
very nature as geometric shapes, round. The demand that God create round
triangles is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense. So also with the second question: a circle with 4 equal
sides that are at 90 degree angles to each other isn’t, by pure definition, a circle – we call such geometric objects squares.
Likewise for the third question: one of God’s essential
attributes is “being.” God simply cannot not
be. Non-existence is not an option for God, and this isn’t due to any lack of
God’s ability or power, but due entirely to what it means for God to be God.
As I have already pointed out, God is.
Hence, God – by pure definition of
what it means to be God – cannot kill Godself.[6] The
long and short of it is that these kinds of questions demand that God work
contradictory nonsense; they demand
that God produce or do something which violates the very nature of things. Since
round triangles are not triangles but circles, such are not ontologically
possible. This kind of observation doesn’t seem to reach such critics,
however. The response I have most frequently received to my observations can be
characterized by the taunt: “But, if God can’t or won’t make round
triangles, then God can’t do everything!” Their
claim is illogical. Demanding that God work logical nonsense, and then judging
God to not be omnipotent because God doesn’t (or “can’t”), is, itself,
illogical. The same is true with the question about God making a rock so big
that God cannot move it. Nevertheless, there is a possible
answer to this question which I have found helpful. It takes a bit of
imagination to comprehend the conditions which enable a satisfactory response,
but the exercise is worth the effort – if only for the joy of seeing
crossed-eyes! Here goes! For
a rock to be so large that God couldn’t move it there would have to be no place in time or space to move it to. In other words, by pure definition of omnipotence, the
limitation upon manipulation must be located not in God’s ability to move the
rock, but in the nature of the
universe. The universe is spatially and temporally finite; hence a rock that
filled it would leave no place for it to be moved to.[7] Objections
to such an answer have been raised from several quarters. Firstly, one person
objected that the Universe wasn’t finite but, rather, infinite. This objection
is invalid because the universe is
finite. True, it is HUGE – far beyond our ability to conceive – but it is
NOT infinite. If you were to travel far enough in one direction, you would end
up back where you started; the Universe is a closed system. As such, the
universe is finite and, hence, could
theoretically be filled up completely. Another
objection to my answer has been that such a “rock” wouldn’t be a
“rock” and that the question doesn’t ask just about size, but may be
understood as also asking about mass. Indeed, nearly any other quality that
would make the rock beyond the ability of God to manipulate would also be
fair-game for this mental exercise. In other words: “It could be that the rock
is so greasy that God can’t lift it.”[8]
Interesting idea, eh? Setting aside the fact that this is a rephrasing of
the original question, let’s take a look at it. Take
mass first: could God make a rock so massive, so heavy, with so much inertia,
that even God’s omnipotence couldn’t move it? The problem with this
modification to the question is that it places an artificial
limit on the nature of God’s creative omnipotence so as to enable an
invalidation of God’s manipulative omnipotence. It is trying to claim: “If
God can’t make a rock so massive that God cannot move it, then God is not
omnipotent.” This question, and the conclusion which is drawn, is, again, like
demanding that God make round triangles. How? Omnipotence
demands that God can move anything. Indeed, God can move a pebble that has an infinite
mass without any trouble at all. Since God can move an infinite
mass, there is nothing that is too
massive or too heavy that God cannot move. “That
means that God is not omnipotent, because God cannot make a rock so massive that
God can't move it!” No
it doesn’t. All this means is that the nature
of the universe, and the nature of
mass itself, is insufficient to test God’s manipulative or creative
omnipotence. This
same response applies to the rock being too greasy for God to lift. Infinite
greasiness wouldn’t be a sufficient quality to foil God’s ability to move
the rock, for God has manipulative dexterity over even infinitely greasy rocks. Hence, slipperiness is insufficient to test
God’s creative omnipotence. Neither
of these observations mean that God isn’t omnipotent; quite the contrary, they
simply mean that God’s ability to create or manipulate objects is limited only
by the nature of the universe itself
– a limit set by God in creation – and not by God’s power. Round triangles
are incapable of being created because such would contradict the very meaning of
“triangularity.” God can still move infinitely massive rocks, and hence mass
is insufficient to test the limits of God’s manipulative power. In both cases,
these limits are imposed not by any
inherent inability in God’s being but, rather, due to the self-limitation that
God accepted in the creation of the universe. This
conclusion shouldn’t really be much of a surprise to anyone. Most Christians
believe that God wants humans to be free to respond to the divine offer of love
and a relationship; God doesn’t desire robotic obedience, but freely-given
faith. Indeed, God so highly prized the freedom which faith requires that God
was willing to risk the very real possibility of the abuse of that freedom –
an abuse that we usually call “sin.” God was willing to accept the
limitations that this freedom, by its very nature, imposed upon God’s Will.
God would rather that all humans accept the offer of love, but God will not
force humans to accept God’s love; love must be freely given for it to be
love; faith must be freely exercised for it to be faith. This
idea of God’s self-limitation is one which we are used to accepting. We
understand that God does not do everything that God could do, and that God’s
not doing such doesn’t mean that God isn’t omnipotent. Omnipotence does not
place an obligation upon God to act; rather, it establishes the opportunity for
God to be free to allow us to act. It
is true that God could still circumvent our freedom and force us to obey the
Divine Will. But to do so would, in effect, cancel out God’s desire for a
true, meaningful relationship with us. In order to receive faith and love, God
was willing to sacrifice not only potential omnipotence, but also the Second
Person of the Holy Trinity – Jesus Christ, Himself. God’s
self-limitation when it comes to the ability to do contradictory things is not,
in and of itself, destructive of God’s omnipotence. Rather, it reflects
God’s desire to establish a universe that obeys rational laws within which
humans have the freedom to respond to the offer of a relationship with Jesus
Christ. God so prized this relationship with us that Jesus died to make it
possible in yet another example of self-giving, self-limiting love. These
several examples of God’s self-limitation are all manifestations of God’s
omnipotence. If nothing else, the ultimate expression of all-power is all-love
… the love that Jesus expressed for us in dying for our sins on the Cross; the
ultimate expression of omnipotence is the willing self-limitation of all-power
so as to make room for freedom, faith, and love. As Christians, we proclaim that
God desires a freely lived relationship with us, one which is exemplified by a
faith on our part that so trusts in God’s love that we are willing to
sacrifice our freedom to God’s will. And, in so sacrificing our freedom, we
are made truly free. And
this is the most incredible thing of all! This omnipotent creator, who is
capable of doing everything, decided
to limit divine power through fashioning the universe, asserting laws and
processes of evolutionary development that eventually resulted in stars,
planets, life, and humans, and then desires a relationship with those very
humans! Amazing! We, who are physically so very insignificant in the grand
scheme of things, are actually of ultimate significance to God. Omnipotence
isn’t just some vague, fuzzy concept that theologians like to kick around. It
is, in a very real sense, the rock-bed essence of God’s freedom – and ours
– to live in a relationship of faith and love. We can come to know God, and
God’s Will for our lives, because God was willing limit omnipotence and enable
our freedom of
choice. And we, truly, are blessed to experience a hint of that
omnipotent love of God by accepting, by faith, the Will of God. Questions for Reflection ¨ Which is more important: the idea that God can do anything God wants to do, or the idea that God can do anything? There is a difference. ¨
Is God’s power limited by God’s love? ¨
Considering the scope of creation, how do you feel when you
realize that the creator cares about, and loves, you? ¨ List all of the amazing acts of God’s omnipotence that you see around you right now. Right next to this list, make another one detailing all your cares and concerns.
¨
Considering all the wonders of God’s omnipotence which you see
around you right now, how difficult do you think your list of concerns are for
God to handle? ¨ When you are alone and search for people to guide you, do you find just the right help, as if sent by God?
[1] …
and if that’s not a tautology, I’ll eat my hat. [2] Exodus 3:13-14 [3] In some respects, they are correct – but logic has only rarely been thought of as a constraint on Christian Theology! Just look at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity! Is it logical? No. Is it true? Yes. The orthodox affirmation of the Church is that it God is Three-In-One, a concept which I accept it as an article of faith. [4] That’s hard to do! [5] Such reasoning is a classical example of the “assumptive fallacy” in logic. To put it succinctly: the Christian God is not universally described as being omnipotent – Process Theologians do not make such a claim – and even if such were true, omnipotence is not the ability to do everything; it is not raw power. It is God’s ability to do that which God wants to do, beginning with existence. [6] I understand that this is something of an ontological argument for the existence of God, similar to that posed by St. Anselm. Indeed, it has some of the same problems as Anselm’s argument. However, when dealing with the question of God’s existence as a hypothetical postulate, even an atheist should be able to accept that one’s definition of God’s ontology should not be shifted around so as to make arguments against the Divine existence possible. A postulated existence for God, and the characteristics of that existence, nominally includes existence. For God to kill Godself would, hence, be a violation of that nature. [7] Yes,
this is another ontological argument. Again, it demands that the nature of
an item be dealt with consistently, and all other factors be maintained as
true. In and of itself, the argument is consistent. And, the cool thing is
that it works. [8] As
if God has fingers! This
alteration of the question told me far more about the atheist presenting it
than it did about God … for all of his intellectual acumen, he was
operating with an anthropomorphic concept of God!
|
Send mail to
GButner@gmail.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
