Why this blog?

Why am I making this theological blog on a comic site you may ask? Well believe it or not comics as a medium fit every genre and encompass every issue, this includes theology. Recently I've been a part of/read a few debates regarding what omnipotence really is, whether its paradoxical and whether there can even be a truly omnipotent being in fiction or beyond. After reading these arguments I have decided to right my own views on this topic, I hope you enjoy and even learn from them, also please discuss your own feelings on the subject below.

Omnipotence Paradox: why I think it is rubbish

You are likely familiar with the omnipotence paradox portrayed humorously in cartoons:

the old "can God make a rock he cant lift" question. some people think this debunks omnipotence, after all omnipotence means being able to do anything right? well if one can do anything then they can make a rock they cant lift, thus they aren't omnipotent! case closed.

But wait! that entire premise is based on a flawed definition of omnipotence, namely that omnipotence means you can do anything and everything possible or impossible. This definition of omnipotence leads to a paradox, however there are other definitions:

Omnipotence can also simply mean unlimited power. "but wait!" you ask, "don't we still have a paradox?" No, we do not. If we simply say that omnipotence means all-powerful, the most powerful being in existence, then there is no paradox. Being able to make something greater than yourself is not a power of omnipotence, in fact it is a negative, something only a non-omnipotent being can do, a sign of weakness and limitation.

So the omnipotence paradox, as far as I am concerned, is absolute rubbish. It is based on a flawed understanding of omnipotence. An omnipotent being is all powerful, however they cannot do anything and everything which begs the question, in what way are they "limited"?

Omnipotence not Nonsense

CS Lewis said:

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Now this definition by Lewis is much better than that flawed and illogical view held by sceptics of omnipotence, however I do not agree with it fully. I feel Lewis is selling omnipotence short by saying it cannot do the intrinsically impossible for is not creation Ex Nihilo intrinsically impossible? Yet truly omnipotent beings are able to create from nothing. While I think CS Lewis was on the right track I think he came up short on his definition of the almighty.

Omnipotence as I define it

as explained above I find the omnipotence paradox to be an idiotic and flawed attempt at a debunk and I think CS Lewis, though right in some respects, sold omnipotence short, so what then do I personally think of omnipotence? Well I would define it as such:

Omnipotence: unlimited power, above all others, able to do anything that does not go against the omnipotent nature

In short, I Am that I Am. God can do the intrinsically impossible, such as make a squared circle, after all that is just a matter of manipulating the laws he himself created Ex Nihilo (from nothing), however God cannot do anything that is against his own nature as he is absolute, to go against his nature would in fact mean he was not omnipotent. Thus God cannot make a rock he cannot lift as that would mean he wasn't all powerful, on the same token Yehovah could not allow sin into heaven as doing so would be to go against himself, something an absolute, eternal and omnipotent being could not do.

In conclusion

in my opinion omnipotence means all powerful and unerring in ones nature, always supreme over all that is was and ever will be. the omnipotence paradox, if looked at unbiasedly, is a flawed argument based on a flawed understanding of omnipotence.

Now I'm not saying my beliefs and thoughts on this topic are what all fictional works should be judged by, omnipotence can be defined many different ways depending on the fiction or religion it comes from, I am just stating my opinion and showing that those who would say there is no such thing as omnipotence are narrow-minded and foolish.

I hope this was a fun and informative read. Please discuss your own thoughts on this topic below, feel free to point out any flaws you see in this post and to engage in debate. Have fun :D