Omnipotence

About Omniscience and Omnipotence

What are the qualities that are seen in God by all monotheistic religions? They all speak about the one, almighty and all-knowing God. The connection between these attributes seems logical, would God still be omnipotent, after all, if he didn't know everything? But actually, this question shall not be the main subject of this text; rather I'd like to flesh out a certain contradiction in the belief in an almighty and omniscient God.

However, a God who knows everything should be able to see the whole future and, quite similar to the demon of Laplace, in fact he ought to have already forecast everything, otherwise, he wouldn't really know it. After all, the possibility to know everything isn't the same as omniscience. But if he knows everything which is going to happen, he also knows what he will do himself, even if it is the knowledge not to be going to do anything. But as this knowledge mustn't turn out to be wrong, for the sake of his omniscience, he won't be able to decide differently: he's bound to what he must do. Said in another way: he won't be able to change anything about future, because his knowledge would have been false otherwise. Through his omniscience, God helps himself to his freedom of decision, whereby he cannot be almighty.

How is a faithful person able to elude this dilemma? A possible answer is offered by church father Augustine (354-430): in the so-called "negative theology" he replies that mankind can state nothing about God using its thinking and logic. After all, he argues, every human being has gained all his experience in our, the "real" world and therefore his intellect is, according to Augustine, not only embossed by this world, but also limited to it.

Convinced by the sight not to be able to say anything about God, a monotheist can also sidestep many "prestidigitations". These can't easily be attacked logically although they're not convincing actually. An example for them is the question whether God would be capable of creating a stone which is too heavy to be lifted, even for himself. In both cases which can be imagined, there would be something that cannot be done by God: Either he cannot create that stone or he's not able to lift it.

Another answer is as follows: That way of arguing depends on the existence of time. God only cannot decide any more if he has already known before what he's going to do. God can, however, be thought beyond time and space, as he created them. In a way, he does and knows everything at the same time; for him, there's neither past, nor present or future. This seems to me to be an explanation more satisfying and more convenient to their faith for most believers in God. After all, theology is based on thinking as well, Greek lógos, which is radically restricted by negative theology. Besides, very most people want to be able to reflect on God.

With the answer provided by Augustine, one additionally limits the plenty of possible notions of God considerably. For example, a God about whom one cannot make any statement has to be thought in a very abstract way. Every quality we want assign to him after all has its source in our thinking and experience. That's why the question's as follows: Does negative theology only exclude logic out of reflexion on God or necessarily all descriptions we develop about him, too?

At least, with Augustine's thoughts the idea of a personal and caring God seems not to be maintainable, but just the belief in an abstract, higher power. However, this shouldn't be enough for most practicing Christians and other monotheists, because, taking Christianity as an example, both prayers and stories out of the Bible communicate and need a much more personal image of God. The more he's thought as an abstract and absolute but not ascertainable principle, the less sense worshipping him and the dialogue with him makes. The praxis thereof is based on a personal, almost anthropomorphising idea of God. The philosophical notion, too, sees in him a consciousness and a spirit, but can it still be sensual do ask him for something when all times are actually one for him? Why does a praying person thank for anything? Usually, because he or she wants to communicate his / her gratefulness, but hardly to give God a better feeling which is an important reason for saying "thanks" to other people, quasi as a wage. God doesn't need any wage as he's everything in the absolute superlative anyway: no aspect of his can be raised, neither his goodness nor anything.

Goodness is a typically human concept as well. It is, relating to God, for example easily attacked by Plato's "Euthyphron-dilemma" which asks whether the ethical right thing is so because it's in God's will or whether it is in his will as it is ethically "good".

Personally, I'm convinced that ethic has been developed by humanity, most likely basing on evolutionarily promising ways of acting, which were widened and generalised by human mind. I couldn't easily accept myself considering something "good" just because this was determined by another spirit, God. In contrast, Moral created by human beings is the struggle for society and all people(s), against the absurd, at least in my eyes. Like this, human mind is in the centre of my world view, which indeed cannot explain our origin or even the beginning of the whole world, but isn't aimed at these questions and doesn't necessarily need answers to them. It is agnostic to those but not willing to worship a God just for the sake of the pure possibility of his existence.

I love this existentialist image of the whole mankind as a fighter against the absurd, with ethic and ideals against the cruelty and senselessness of the world around us.