Omnipotence is a word of Latin
descent (‘omnis’ meaning ‘all’ and ‘potent’ meaning ‘power’) to describe a
being as ‘all-powerful’.
This is a feature usually ascribed
to a religion’s deity. Omnipotence is one of the Classical Characteristic of
God in Christian theology, for example. Yet some view omnipotence as allowing said
being can do/achieve anything, even the impossible.
However, I find this is interpretation
problematic. Something being impossible is so called because it isn’t possible,
that is, it cannot be done. From this, if something can be done, it is
possible, not impossible. Thus if an omnipotent being does something, it is (by
definition) possible.
True, it may not be possible for a
human to do it, but an individual’s capabilities for possible actions shouldn’t
be generalised into a universal rule. The fact that one being is the only one
capable of performing an action shows said action is possible. (To give an observable example, it’s
not possible for a cow to do star jumps but that doesn’t make star jumps
impossible.)
It doesn’t matter how much power
something has because power allows for doing the possible; no amount of power
can do what is not possible. If something is done, it is possible. An
omnipotent entity cannot do the impossible because, by doing something, that
something is possible.
Thus this interpretation of
omnipotence is highly flawed: indeed, philosophers and theologians often apply
limitations on what omnipotence can achieve. This flawed (and perhaps instinctual)
understanding is due to incorrect and incomplete explanation by a priest of
what is meant by their deity being all-powerful. A good educator doesn’t teach by simplifying a
concept into falsity.
No comments:
Post a Comment