15 0

My Question on omnipotent

Omnipotent this is a big word what does it mean?
I could google it, I have an idea what it means but if I have it wrong well then I could look like a fool. You do not come across it very much in Ireland.

RaymondNoble 3 Sep 2

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Q, as in the Star Trek charector considered himself Omnipotent. As good of an example as any since no omnipotent beings exist.


Omni = all
Potent = powerful

With respect to god, omnipotence means god is entirely non-dependent on anything or anyone in any way. He does not have to get permission, justify himself, or plug in somewhere for a recharge.

It is basically just a way of saying "might makes right" so that people will not have the temerity to question god's Mysterious Ways even when they seem irrational, unfair, and/or unjust. Because god's ways are really the clergy's ways, back here in the real world.

That's why you have Catholics responding to the Pennsylvania AG report with fasting and prayer rather than taking actual responsibility, making sure that guilty heads roll, or doing anything rational to actually substantively address the problem.


Deepak Chopra said that, "God," is a loaded term. There is much baggage to the term concerning good and evil and all of the myths. If you do not want to include the baggage, you might say, "omnipotent being," meaning all powerful.

MrDMC Level 7 Sep 3, 2018

Ghostianity, And Humanity; what more can I say?


go to the US and ask Trump!


I regardless of the exact definition would place this in the area where i go out and have fun and feel remarkably safe anywhere. I could also put the word in any thought i had about why things happen and work with it as a limiting statement. It is perhaps a descriptive that occurs when charting i guess philosophy, I think.


Omnipotent = all powerful. A common invalid inference is that an omnipotent being can therefore do anything whatever; but this does not follow. Rather, what follows is that an omnipotent being can do anything that it takes power to do. So, for example, from the fact that no being can draw a square circle (or create a rock so big the it cannot move it), it does not follow that there is no omnipotent being, for these are logical impossibilities--rather than things that cannot be done because because of a power deficiency.


Viagra is supposed to help with the omnipotence problem.


You could google it in a fraction of the time it takes to write about it. Strange to me so many people on this website don't seem to know how to use google and keep asking questions that they could easily look up themselves.

At least there aren't homework problems here as one finds all over Quora these days.


a word you can never use without knowing your wrong


All powerful. If God is all powerful, could God make a rock to heavy to lift?


Omnipotent means all powerful.


Impervious to all lest...Harlots.


Ummm, all powerful. You know like our U.S. president 🙂🙂🙂

lerlo Level 8 Sep 2, 2018

I had to learn the "essence box" at a young age... God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. All powerful, all seeing, and all knowing.

Lauxa Level 5 Sep 2, 2018

For me it was omnipotent (all powerful) omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (all good). Knowing everything and being all powerful kind of implies being everywhere and everywhen, although, my fundamentalist overlords wouldn't object to the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) but just didn't emphasize it. Probably a good thing, too, as they heaped enough guilt and shame on people without turning god into a voyeur as well.

The 3 "omnis" I listed are also the basis for the "Problem of Evil" (which I prefer to call the Problem of Suffering, plus, the initials POS are a nice double entendre). Which states that god cannot be all powerful, all knowing and all loving and stand by and permit any amount of human suffering. Logically he must not be at least one of those things, if not outright malignant.

Attempts to wiggle out of this powerful logical conundrum are called "theodicies" (thee-ODD-iss-ees) and no one has ever actually constructed one. I enjoy watching theists struggle with this inescapable trap -- although they usually hand-wave their way out of it, or think they do, it's still good clean fun watching them squirm.

Wallace brought up a very good point and that is that Omni-XXX is only "all" in the sense of all that is possible. For example, they could be Omniscient and know everything there is to know now without knowing how that will entail the future or Omnipotent and be powerful enough to do everything that can be done within the rules set forth by nature or themselves. Or they could be Omnibenevolent and allow suffering today in order to prevent greater suffering tomorrow. So because the logical conundrum is made up based on how we see the Omni's it play out, the conundrum is equally resolved simply by proposing a different resolution, one that fits the definition of Omni but allows Omnimax gods to behaive pretty much however we want.

Therein lay the problem with the theist and atheist use of the Omnis to respectively prove and disprove their position: we can always find a way into a trap but we can just as easily find a way out of the trap and we are no further along at proving or disproving anything for said exercise.

@TheMiddleWay Point taken, and I don't really disagree. However, fundamentalism generally does not see a god who is not literally omnimax as a god worth worshipping. Ironically they soften their literalist leanings to give themselves wiggle room, but they would normally not see it as possible for god to, say, make a rock so big he couldn't lift it. Their hand-waving argument there would be that god's ways are beyond mere human understanding and they have faith that it all makes sense even if it doesn't seem to.

And the fact remains that even if god is subject to a self-imposed limitation, it's still a limitation, and he's still rendered less than all-powerful. And they DO teach that god is entirely non-dependent and non-contingent on anything or anyone else and acts totally without any constraints -- else he would not BE god. And it is on them to deal with the cognitive dissonance of that, not me. In fact I delight in increasing their cognitive dissonance around it.

Putting fundamentalist and literal in the same sentence is redundant, innit? 😀 And yeah, if you are literally going to believe that god(s) can make a squared circle to prove that they do exist or that he can make a rock even he can't lift to prove they don't, if that is the extent of your logical process for an against... then I literally doubt your logical process! 😀

Ok, that's not entirely true. I do have much to say if one adopts the above premise even if I initially doubt it. 😛

For example playing the game for another round, it depends on how we qualify "all". Does that mean all that is or all that can logically be or all that can be, logically or not? It's going back to the literal interpretation... if god is all powerful, then it shouldn't have limitations. But, who is calling god all powerful? Ultimately it's us giving it that label at worst or us acting as a the mouthpiece for the gods at best. And either way, to us, even said limitations might be "all powerful" if we don't know, can't conceive, nor can ever go beyond those limitations.

Personally, I delight in finding a way to resolve the paradox rather than reinforcing it. By finding a way that they could be correct, I flex my logical muscles way more than by reinforcing the ways that I already know they are incorrect. Mind you, this doesn't mean adopting their point of view... it is merely an exercise for me, a way to practice my logic against insurmountable literal odds

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:170071
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.