Omnipotence
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Religion}} | ||
[[image:ceiling cat.jpg|thumb|right|Ceiling Cat. May or may not be omnipotent, but is definitely [[omniscient]], at least in places where [[masturbation]] is happening.]] | [[image:ceiling cat.jpg|thumb|right|Ceiling Cat. May or may not be omnipotent, but is definitely [[omniscient]], at least in places where [[masturbation]] is happening.]] | ||
Revision as of 11:32, 1 January 2013
| One of many articles on |
| The main players |
| Critics |
| Supporting actors |
“”And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
|
| —Judges 1:19,[1] makes sense in non-KJV. |
Omnipotence is the quality of being "all powerful".
Contents |
Philosophy
The concept of omnipotence plays a strong role in various philosophical and logical arguments both for and against the existence of god, including the ontological argument, the omnipotence paradox, and the problem of evil.
Additionally, absolute knowledge and absolute power are mutually contradictory in that a version of the omnipotence paradox can be formed saying "can an omnipotent being ask a question that an omniscient being cannot answer". And, of course, it is possible to presuppose for absolute knowledge an equivalent 'extent' of 'knowledge; as the 'extent' of 'power' commonly presupposed for omnipotence: knowing that 2+2=logical explosion, knowing how to do everything that omnipotence can do without making any effort, and knowing how to do it without having to know how to do it. So, from at least most epistemological presuppositions, the extent to which an omnipotent being knows things is unclear.
At which point, it may seem that this 'irrational omniscience' would be more powerful than 'irrational omnipotence' since the former would already know that 2+2=5, 5000, my toupee, etc. (logical explosion). But, there is no logical distinction between the irrational views of either of these 'omni's', because, from the point of view of a being which is 'irrationally omnipotent', 2+2 would already entail logical explosion.
All of which makes something like omnibenevolence seem simple, at least until it, too, is construed in terms of an irrational notion of 'absolute' (loves 'absolutely' everything, including aggrevated rape).
So, can power, in any sense, be coherently defined, since power can be construed as being dissociated from everything rational? After all, power is defined as the ability to bring about a given state of affairs, and, since my parakeet has power (to turn seeds into doo doo), then my parakeet can make 2 + 2 = 'absolutely' any state of affairs no matter how non-state-of-affairs-ish that 'state of affairs' may be. So, for instance, it's a state of affairs that my parakeet is omnipotent (even though she's not), and there is no gutted logic that can prove otherwise.
Omnipotent beings
Examples of omnipotent beings include.
- God (if you believe She exists)
- Chuck Norris
- Deepak Chopra
- Santa Claus
- Rush Limbaugh (if you ask Him)
- The Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Tmtoulouse