Talk:Omnipotence
|
|
The power to do anything. RitaBijlsma
| Contents |
Multiple Omnipotence Beings
Many religions proclaim the existence of one or more omnipotent beings. However, Jehova's Witnesses point out that God could not be omnipotent. In fact that omnipotence is a senseless concept:
- I am not aware of any religion that proclaims the existence of more than one omnipotent being. RK
- Star Trek (all the Q) ;-)
It is clear that a human could not make a hammer that can be used for beating nails into wood, but not for beating another human. But if the hammer is supposed to be made of natural materials, God could not do it either! It is inherently not possible to fulfill contradicting conditions.
- Jehovah's witnesses teach that a human cannot use a hammer to beat another human? Do they read police reports? This can't be someone's idea of theology, can it?! RK
- I used a double negation and the sentence may not be correct english, so you could have corrected my english instead of claiming that I made such an absurd statement!
In the same way, according to Jehova's Witnesses, it is not possible for God to create a human that is programmed to be obiedient and at the same time is capable of being creative. Creativity requires by definition a will of one's own.
- If an entry is needed on this topic, shouldn't it start with the material on "omnipotence" already found in the entry on God and the related entries on religious philosophy? RK
POV
This material is unclear and completely written from a Jehova's Witness point of view. I've moved it here, in case there's any useful information to extract. --Stephen Gilbert
Thanks Ed Poor for your new version of the article, that was the point I wanted to make (which, to my surprise, I heard from Jehova's Witnesses)
However, I do agree with RK that the overview of different perspectives from the God article should be incorporated. I think it should be moved from the God article. I didn't search for the term before I wrote the article, because there were question-references to the term (even in the God article, despite explaining the term omnipotence later in the article).
I would want my examples back in, but I will think of explaining them better.
The omnipotence of God is used by some to proof that He does not exist, because He would just have created people programmed to be obiedient to Him. An argument against this (from Jehova's witnesses) is that God wants people to be creative and therefore has to allow them free will. It is not necessary to be able to accomplish contradictory goals to be the Souvereign of the universe, as the simultaneous accomplishment of contradictory goals is meaningless.
Formatting
This is a minor pet peeve, but I have made a change in the past that moved item five out of the enumerated list into a separate paragraph, and someone keeps putting it back into the list. The first four items describe four different ways that describe what one means when says that God is omnipotent; the last item describes a non-omnipotent conception of God. It does not belong in the list! It should be separated out, in a different paragraph or otherwise not associated with the other four items. This is especially the case because the list is preceded with an introductory sentence that specifically says that it is a list of the different ways that one can conceive of omnipotence. The rejection of a doctrine of omnipotence is not an example of what one means when one says that God is omnipotent!
Capitalization of God and Related Pronouns
What's this with the decapitalisation of pronouns referring to God? Is this some sort of new secular standard I haven't heard of yet? -- Tim Starling 03:18 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
From User talk:Tim Starling:
Hi. Is there a convention on capitalising "he" etc when it's about God? -- Evercat 13:07 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes. What, you thought it was an accident, did you? -- Tim
I mean a convention on Wikipedia. I thought I'd read somewhere that it was considered POV, but maybe I misremembered. -- Evercat 13:16 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
- That's what I was hoping you would tell me. I don't think there is such a convention. I did a quick search, and I didn't find anything related. I've never heard of it being offensive or POV or anything else, but then, what would I know? I don't even understand what's offensive about AD. But I don't think we should break with (external) convention without a good reason. -- Tim Starling 13:32 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
- I have always learned that the convention is to capitalize pronouns referring to specific monotheistic gods. I agree about not breaking with convention except for a good reason, and I don't see a good reason spelled out in Wikipedia's Style Manual, but it does say there not to capitalize pronouns referring to divinities. -GTBacchus 19:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Well alright, maybe I crossed the line in editing someone else's use of the convention. Sorry. I guess as long as a page is consistent it's OK. Still, I prefer the non-capitalised form, since it's standard grammar, as far as I know. There are pages that don't do this, e.g. Omnipotence paradox, even before I started working on that. -- Evercat 13:42 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
The Associated Press stylebook guidelines are to "capitalize God in references to the deity of monotheistic religions. Capitalize all noun (and pronoun) references to the diety. Lowercase gods and godesses in references to the deities of polytheistic religions...." Some old AP stylebooks have conflicting statements in regard to pronouns, but it is pretty accepted to capitalize them. Other styles have similar guidelines, but some don't. It is a pretty well accepted norm. However, I feel that consistency is the key -Visorstuff 20:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- If there is to be discussion as to whether Wikipedia should capitalize pronouns for God (I'm inclined to think we should), perhaps it should take place at the capitalization conventions discussion page rather than here. -GTBacchus 01:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
The Simpsons
Homer Simpson: (asking Ned Flanders) "Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"
New POV problem
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omnipotence&curid=22776&diff=0&oldid=12236467
Both sides of this revision are with a POV, and the newest revision has poor grammar. Can it be changed, anyone? Edit: (Same user) this revision actually is not only gramatically problematic, but makes no real sense at all. Eggh. I fear changing it back, as the person may fight over it. 24.76.141.220 02:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm just a timid non-registered person. I've made the change, shoot me (or revert it) if you choose, but I think I did the best I could to kill both biases. The user is making a change to the Omnipotence Paradox page though, so that may have to be watched. 24.76.141.220 03:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Other omnipotent beings
Except for the mention of Star Trek's Q and the like, there seems not to be any material around here about omnipotence applied to beings other than God. In fact, the article could be called "Omnipotence of God". I'd like to include a list of fictional omnipotent or quasi-omnipotent beings (such as Q), but I'd like some feedback regarding organization of the page, and ideas to include. Is there a list of fictional creatures anywhere? --Pablo D. Flores 10:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
What if?
What if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient; but cannot be both at one instant, nor have access to both abilities at the same time?
(just wondering...)206.156.242.39 18:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- To be omnipotent is the power to do anything. To be omniscient is the power to know anything. If you can do anything, you can make it so you know anything, so they don't seem exclusive like that. Your question seems to make no sense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)