One could argue that since God defines what is right and wrong, he could rewrite these rules for himself when the need arises. The problem with this argument is that it would mean that God is subject to change, therefore is not timeless, or for that matter perfect, and must have a beginning and an end. Thus meaning that he is not omnipotent.
This is however, more of an attack against Christianity rather than the definition of omnipotence, which does not require the being in question to have a perfect moral code.
This definition does however beg the question; can an omnipotent being create another being more powerful than itself, or another equally powerful being?
If it can, then it cannot be omnipotent since it is possible for something to be more powerful than itself. However if it cannot, then it is not an omnipotent being.
The second definition offered is that an omnipotent being would be able to do anything logically possible. This means that the being would be all powerful, but only within the realm of logic.
Now immediately we can see the problem with this argument, it would mean that omnipotence is limited. This is a contradiction in terms. Something which is all powerful cannot be limited by anything or else it is not all powerful.
One could argue that the being could change the rules of logic when necessary to accommodate its will.
This is also contradictory the Christian stance once again, since it would mean that God is capable of sinning. Unless you put forth the point that since God is love, he cannot logically sin.
However, this leads on to another argument, which is what constitutes a sin? One definition of sin is deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. Of course, God cannot deliberately disobey Himself; therefore the issue of sinning is irrelevant to Him since it would be impossible for him to do so. Another definition would be that anything which is considered morally wrong constitutes a sin, but God created morals for humans, He Himself has been known to go against them in numerous stories from the Bible (The destruction of Sodom for example) which presumably means that he is not bound by such laws and is above them.
Since there are so many issues with this definition, so it can be modified to say that an omnipotent being can do anything that is absolutely possible.
This means that it is capable of doing anything that does not involve a contradiction. For example in the case of the Christian God, it would not be able to kill itself since God is supposed to be eternal.
This is probably the most satisfactory of the definitions so far, since it allows for a being to be omnipotent, but not contradictory. And the examples of logic defying acts which the first definition would be capable of are mostly just tricks of human language used to create an impossible circumstance rather than a scientifically impossible feat.
Therefore the only restriction on God’s power is His own nature which prevents him from doing evil etc.
However, if followed through then this could entail that God does not have any freewill. This is because God is immutable, and to make a choice involves change. Therefore God is unable to make choices.
However, since God is a perfect being, why would he need to make any choices? A being which knows all and is faultless would have no choice to make; In the same way that a computer does not make ‘choices’, it would simply follow the correct course of action at all times without having to go through the process of choice.
So it is true that a perfect being would have no free will, because it would have no need for free will.
The fourth definition given is that: God has all the logically possible powers that are possible for God to have. This is a much narrower version of omnipotence, which means that God would have all the powers which it would be logically possible for it to have. This means that he would have all powers which are within the realms of logic and do not contradict one another or contradict what it means to be God. For example he would have the power to create life, but not to sin, which would be contradictory to the nature of God.
Or, he could have contradictory powers, but not be able to use them both at the same time. Such as the power to lift any object, and the power to create an object impossible to lift.
However, this definition is not really omnipotence. Under this definition I too am omnipotent, since I possess all the abilities that it is logical for me to have.
The fifth and final definition is: To talk of God’s omnipotence is to talk of the irresistible power of love.
This definition implies that God is not some all powerful sentient being who acts through himself, but is instead the manifestation of love itself. And in this case the meaning of omnipotent is basically ‘love conquers all’. Instead of being an actual power in itself, it acts through humans and their actions.
However to me this suggests that without humans, God would not exist since there would be no love in the world. Therefore before and after humans, there can be no God, contradicting the idea that It is eternal.
The theory suggested in the book ‘Small Gods’ by Terry Pratchett may help us with this scenario, that Gods are created and sustained by human belief.
To me this definition is the weakest of the five, it doesn’t give any clear meaning to the word and denies the theory that God is a) A creator and b) Timeless.
Personally, I find the first definition to be the most accurate of omnipotence but its literal meaning. If something is all-powerful then it must have the power to do anything, even that which we deem to be impossible. Since these things are only inconceivable to a human mind, to a higher being perhaps there are ways around even the most ridiculous concept.
However, this is not necessarily the best definition for describing Gods power. The only reason for believing that He is omnipotent is that religious texts tell us so. And in comparison to humans He would very much seem this way, however He may not be ALL powerful, but simply immensely powerful. I believe that if there is a God, then it would fit into the second definition and only have power within the realms of logic but not out of it.
The first definition itself exists outside the realms of logic, therefore it is unattainable and most likely does not exist outside of human language, however it is the only truly accurate definition of omnipotent.
