Even in the presence of such difficulties Rene Descartes holds the view that God can do everything; following the definition that omnipotence is a kind of supremacy, all-powerfulness, God’s omnipotence is then absolute and radical. Descartes believes that God can do the logically possible as well as the logically impossible. Thus God can make a square circle and change the laws of mathematics. “God can do whatever we are able to understand, but not that He cannot do what we are unable to understand. For it would be presumptuous to think that our imagination extends as far as His powers” By this Descartes means that for us humans it is impossible to imagine and understand a notion as illogical as a square circle, however God created everything, including logic. Thus for Descartes it is coherent for God to be able to do such things.
On greater explanation Descartes concept of God’s omnipotence becomes logically coherent, as it does make sense that God would be able to do everything, even things that are outside of our understanding. However there are still some logical and philosophical problems when the question is posed does being omnipotent mean that God ought to be able to do what is logically impossible? Aquinas argued that logical impossible actions, such as 2+2 = 5, are not actions at all. They are not ‘proper things’ that one can or cannot do. Also there are theological problems with God’s omnipotence being a logically coherent concept as many argue that it is incorrect to suggest that God can sin, lie or engage in immoral behaviour. In Hebrews 6:18 of the Bible it is stated that it is impossible for God to lie. Thus this concept of God’s omnipotence is not fully coherent.
St. Thomas Aquinas approach omnipotence from a slightly different angle which makes it seem much more coherent, logically. He recognises the difficulties with saying what omnipotence is, but everybody agrees that God is omnipotent. Unlike Descartes, he believed that when we say God can do all things, we mean that God can do things that are possible. Some say the God’s omnipotence is not a coherent concept because God cannot sin, but Aquinas replies that to sin is to fall short of perfection thus being able to sin is a weakness and lack of power, so being able to sin would not only go against God’s omnipotence but also God’s goodness. Some still object the logic of God’s omnipotence as some argue that a very powerful God would rid the world of all evil instead of putting up of sinners. But Aquinas responds that God shows his omnipotence in sparing and having mercy. Every person is indebted to God for him creating us, and the fact that God is lawmaker and one in charge of justice shows his omnipotence in creation.
Therefore because we can see the power of God in the world today, in the fact that everyone knows what is wrong and what is right as a result of God’s laws that were handed down, and most people abide by these laws. This shows God has power over the world. So one could say, to a very strong extent, that God’s omnipotence is logically coherent.
C.S. Lewis agreed with Aquinas he argued that God’s omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible not things that are intrinsically impossible. In ‘The Problem of Pain’ Lewis writes, “You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power”. He continues that meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them two other words ‘God can’. Lewis says that it remains true that all things are possible with God, but argues that intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. He suggests nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk about God thus it is not meaningful to say God can do things like make 2+2=5.
If we take the Lewis view of omnipotence the concept becomes logically coherent to a greater extent. It is widely accepted that God can do what is logically possible, which is touched on by Lewis. Anthony Kenny also holds a similar view. In ‘ The God of the Philosophers’ Kenny states that God’s omnipotence must be defined as “ a narrower omnipotence, consisting in the possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to have.” Meaning that God can do that which is logically possible, thus we shouldn’t speak of God changing the past or making square circles, as it is illogical. Alvin Plantiga took this further; he argued that an omnipotent being might not have omnipotence as a necessary quality. He may choose to limit his powers in certain circumstances in order to preserve human free will. Such a view of omnipotence is coherent and seems to solve many of the problems that arise. But these views have a weakness in that it could be argued that it doesn’t really say anything. We are effectively saying that God can do all things that God can do.
Peter Geach suggests an alternative. He bases this on the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and the word used to describe God translates as ‘almighty’. Geach argue that this is best understood as a capacity for power, power over everything rather than a power to do everything.
God’s omnipotence is logically coherent to an extent, depending on the interpretation of omnipotence. If we take the view of Descartes that God can do everything then It raises issues of contradiction as if God was to make a square circle it would contradict what a circle is. Also if God was to change the past it would alter a person’s free will as whatever they did God would be able to change it. The problem of evil comes into play too when this approach is taken, as if God is all-powerful He could rid the world of evil but because he doesn’t the concept of God being omnipotent is not logically coherent.
However if you take the view held by Lewis or Kenny, and more so Plantiga you can reach a concept of omnipotence which is logically coherent to a great extent, thus it could be concluded that the extent to which God’s omnipotence Is coherent is dependent on how you interpret omnipotence.
by
bbomb (student)
