Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Omnipotence, Evil, and Natures

**Posted by Indeterminate** 6/07/2016 2:41 am

I sometimes hear people say that omnipotence is the ability to do anything within your nature as a response to being pressed on why God can't do evil acts, but being able to do whats in your nature is true of every being, so the statement seems vacuous

Any clarification here would be appreciated.

**Posted by Indeterminate** 6/07/2016 3:51 am

Thought if we define God's power as almighty, we still need to be able give a concrete analysis of what this is. What did you have in mind?

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/07/2016 4:54 pm

Am I the only one that still holds with Augustine that evil has no reality of its own? It is a deficiency with respect to being.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 6/08/2016 9:45 pm

Indeterminate wrote:
I sometimes hear people say that omnipotence is the ability to do anything within your nature as a response to being pressed on why God can't do evil acts, but being able to do whats in your nature is true of every being, so the statement seems vacuous

Any clarification here would be appreciated.

If omnipotence is held to be the ability to do anything we can think of, even what is contradictory, then absurdity quickly ensues - it would mean God would have the power to create another God, or not be God, or make 2+2=5.

Omnipotence is about God's relationship to creation. It means he is all-powerful over that creation. But it comes from his nature, and not the other way around, lest we arrive back at the absurdity just mentioned. So far as God himself is concerned, it would be better to say he is necessary and infinite - his omnipotence comes flows from these but, as noted, is an aspect of them when turned towards his creation.

**Posted by Greg** 6/09/2016 6:35 am

Alexander wrote:
This is basically the "Mr. McEar" objection, correct?

I think many theists would just not define omnipotence in this way. I'm drawn by Peter Geach's suggestion that we stop talking of God as "omnipotent" (i.e. "God can do anything - with the relevant qualifications"), and instead say that God is "almighty" (i.e. "God has power over everything - with the relevant qualifications"). Geach believes that "God is almighty" gets across all that we would want to say in "God is omnipotent", but without the paradoxes. Though for a different view see Alfred Freddoso's article "Maximal Power".

I favor this approach. And I think something more can be said about "almighty" than that being almighty is having power over everything. Specifically arguments for God's existence should fill out the content of what that power amounts to. God is almighty because he sustains every being (in the broad sense of substances and accidents) in being.

**Posted by Moonfall** 6/11/2016 11:59 am

Absurdities do ensue when you try mean God can do anything. Then you get the silly questions like, "can God creat a stone so heavy He cannot lift it?" This, parsed correctly is simply a nonsense sentence. There are plenty of others, which are less blatantly nonsense, but are nonsensical just the same. And nonsense doesn't become sensible merely because you speak it about God. So God cannot violate the principle of non-contradiction, not because He is not almighty, but because nonsense remains nonsense.