Omnipotence?

[TheAnachronism]

Hello everyone.

Early this evening I was having a debate/discussion with my friend that began with the Hot-Burrito-Paradox. I don't know if that's what it's properly called, but the general question is: if God is omnipotent, can he create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?

My friend stated that God's omnipotence only applies to things that can be rationally done, and thus God could obviously not create a task he could not perform. And indeed, one meaning of omnipotence is "having unlimited or very great power," (emphasis mine) implying that some things could not be done by an omnipotent being. The problem is this: how could we possibly decide what can and cannot be rationally accomplished by God, assuming his power is great but limited? It is illogical for God to be both formless and yet have an image (he created man in His image, etc.), but this is accepted as being accomplished by God.

My main question is this: is the omnipotence that the Christian God is typically ascribed ever mentioned in the Bible, or is it a part of Christian tradition that is unwritten but universally held as true? Does the Bible ever mention the what limits God's power has? Is the "Hot-Burrito-Paradox" ridiculous because it was never written that God's power had no limits?

I dunno...any help or insight would be appreciated.

 

[X]

God can be foiled by chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).

They describe him as powerful because otherwise they couldn't very well call him a god. He has to be the most powerful thing they can think of.

It wouldn't do to have something more powerful than god, would it?

This might be of help.

It's parallel translation of Revelation 19:6, the first passage I found on a quick search that mentioned omnipotence.

Of note is that fact that most translations use "almighty". Only the King James Version, the American KJV and the Webster's Bible Translation use the word "omnipotent". A couple use the phrase "Ruler of all".

So it's in there, depending on which translation you use.
And, as is par for the course with the Bible, it is contradicted elsewhere in the tome.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It's not a problem to be embarrassed of. God just needs to take some ovniagra and wait an hour.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

The problem is this: how could we possibly decide what can and cannot be rationally accomplished by God, assuming his power is great but limited?

Why not when we're already starting with an assumption that this God fellow is omnipotent?

As per the question concerning whether the concept of omnipotence is articulated in scripture or not, I don't believe so.

<Anecdotal evidence>

When I was in my stage of spiritual limbo I began taking RCIA classes at a Catholic Church in order to convert. The instructor there informed us that the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence (thought not negated by the Bible) did not come from the Bible, rather they were introduced from the early doctors of the Church who studied Greek philosophy.

</Anecdotal evidence>

Whether this is true, I don't know. Frankly I've never been interested enough to research it since I believe omnipotence and omniscience is a useless concept precisely due to these little paradoxes that seem to lack answers.

 

[Beerina]

Why not when we're already starting with an assumption that this God fellow is omnipotent?

Worse, they didn't actually start with it. At one point, Yahweh was just another member of the Canaanite pantheon, complete with girlfriend Ishtar. And pantheons are the outgrowth if spiritualism and animism assigning invisible (and malevolent) motives to lightning or blowing grass or droughts. Mentally assigning danger to nature is useful to save you from a tiger or bear. And if no bear shows up, as per lightning, then must be something you can't see doing it.



And having said that, there is no such thing as a "most powerful infinite god". To put it bluntly, omnipotent gods trip over the computational Halting Problem, too. Just add the little magical Goedel device that makes him halt when he decide he wouldn't, and vice versa, and he chokes in all his Infinite Glory.

And to top it off, a god is an infinite bag of abilities. Thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know there is no "highest" transfinite number, where said numbers are the "size" of various infinite sets. Hence, given any god anyone can possibly imagine, I can immediately conceive of a more powerful god.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about god having an erection so big that not even he could lift it

I'll be on my way now...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I find it interesting that people have problems with swallowing the paradox, but have absolutely no problem with God eating burritos, or just eating. Yum.


And as an aside, if omnipotence only applies to acts that can rationally, or logically be done then everyone and everything is omnipotent. For example I cannot lift a car with one hand, but you wouldn't think that it is logically possible that the power that my arms, muscles can logically muster up would be enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth on the car. Everything that can be done, and everything that can logically be done express the very same thing, rendering omnipotence meaningless.


As to what the Bible say, have a look at the Wikipedia entry on omnipotence. It points to Rev 19:6 amongst others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Scriptural_grounds

 

[phantomb]

And as an aside, if omnipotence only applies to acts that can rationally, or logically be done then everyone and everything is omnipotent. For example I cannot lift a car with one hand, but you wouldn't think that it is logically possible that the power that my arms, muscles can logically muster up would be enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth on the car. Everything that can be done, and everything that can logically be done express the very same thing, rendering omnipotence meaningless.

Not quite. Not being able to lift a car without the muscle to do so is not comparable to the logical impossibility of, say, creating a square circle. If you go back to the OP, one of the new, "pragmatic" definitions of omnipotent was "very great power". It is easy to imagine a being of very great power who can lift a car. It is impossible to imagine a being of any amount of power who is capable of creating a square circle.

 

[Bristow42]

Can I just say if you don't believe in god you should not have to justify yourself as a not believe by degrading Christian or Muslim gods, with retard Q and A. Fundamental Christians and Muslims, visit this site and uses your comments to justify their prejudice against no believers. thus promoting their believes. Don't give the ******** ammo.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

My main question is this: is the omnipotence that the Christian God is typically ascribed ever mentioned in the Bible, or is it a part of Christian tradition that is unwritten but universally held as true? Does the Bible ever mention the what limits God's power has?

Some scriptures stating or implying God can do anything, along with some contrary ones.

Is the "Hot-Burrito-Paradox" ridiculous because it was never written that God's power had no limits?

The "Hot-Burrito-Paradox" (and many others of its ilk) is ridiculous because it is merely a meaningless artifact of a combinatorial grammar system. A claim to omnipotence is a claim about what actions a being can take, not a claim about what sentences a being can fulfill. That language allows us to create unfulfillable sentences is hardly a constraint on anyone's power, God or otherwise.

 

[theprestige]

If God is omnipotent, then logically it follows that not only can he create a burrito to hot for him to eat, but he can then go ahead and eat it anyway.

Indeed, the Christian narrative has its God doing exactly such kinds of paradoxical things on at least two occasions: Being undying, then dying anyway, and then still being undying anyway; and being unable to abide associaction with sin in any way, and yet indwelling in sinful people anyway, and yet still being unable to abide sin in any way.

So this idea of the logical impossibility of the omnipotence of God is not very original, nor very clever. In fact it's clearly recognized and marveled at by the authors of the narrative themselves.

But I don't really see that the fact that exploration of God's alleged omnipotence leads to a kind of logical or philosophical singularity, is a valid argument against the possibility of God's existence. This is similar to how I don't really see that the fact that exploration of the nature of the pre-big bang universe leads to a mathematical singularity, is a valid argument against the possibility of the cosmos existing; nor that the similar singularity arising from the study of black holes is a valid argument against the possible existence of Saggitarius A*.