“According to some philosophers, omnipotence should be understood in terms of the power to perform certain tasks, for instance, to kill oneself, to make 2+2=4, or to make oneself non-omniscient. However, in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs, understood as propositional entities which either obtain or fail to obtain” (Rosenkrantz & Hoffman 1980; Flint & Freddoso 1983; and Wierenga 1989).
For years, humans have questioned the true existence of God and if he really controls each and every one of our lives. The constant battle over who is omnipotent and who has the ultimate power over each of us has left many with their own theories and practices that go against each other. I’ve taught myself to go about the idea of “to each his own” in order to secure my opinion as well as recognize the opinion of others.
Omnipotence is defined as the literal form of maximized power and the ability to do anything. Past events have shown that God has taken the definition of omnipotence and influenced people to believe in a man in the sky who decides our fate and future for us. People live for the man in the sky and have convinced themselves that everything happens for a reason, so we’re being controlled by someone without the legitimate knowledge. To me, it seems a bit far-fetched for something like that to exist; it’s mythical to me. I’ve been asked many times whether I believe that God exists and to this day I say that I don’t, but I do believe that there is a form of a God or spirit that is more powerful than myself. I don’t believe that this powerful spirit has complete control of my life, but I do believe that it aids me in the way that I live my life. I agree that everything happens for a reason, but I find it highly unlikely that there is someone that controls all of the good and bad that happens in our lives.
George I. Mavrodes made the argument concerning the Paradox of the Stone. The story behind the Paradox is: “Can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift”. It makes him not all powerful and if he didn’t create it then he doesn’t exist. Atheists have argued that he can’t, therefore there is no God. Mavrodes said that they don’t have a valid argument because it’s a contradiction, and you can’t do things that are self-contradictory. He argues that the theory doesn’t make sense because it is contradicting itself but at the same time, it’s possible for him to create such a stone that even he can’t lift on his own; it proves that he is not omnipotent.
“On the assumption that God is omnipotent, the phrase ‘a stone too heavy for God to lift’ becomes self-contradictory. For it becomes ‘a stone which cannot be lifted by Him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything.’ But the ‘thing’ described by a self-contradictory phrase is absolutely impossible and hence has nothing to do with the doctrine of omnipotence” (George I. Mavrodes).
He acknowledges that God can be omnipotent for creating a stone so powerful that even he can’t lift which leads into him being not omnipotent, thus leading to the Paradox of the Stone. Creating a task that God can’t accomplish on his own shows the extent of his power and that people are depending on an all powerful man to control their lives.
Boethius’ theory opened the idea that we all posses free will because it’s a requirement of “rational nature”. He goes into the argument of the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge. “God sees everything in advance and cannot be deceived” (Boethius). The argument that God knows of every event before they actually occur in every person’s life. Whatever he sees is what will happen and there is no stopping one’s fate, which just comes to show that “rational creatures have no free will”.
"The 'solution': Things do not happen because divine Providence foresees that they will happen, divine Providence foresees that they will happen because they will happen".
In other words, this solution says, divine Providence is not to be thought the cause of things happening as they do, but things happen as they do because that’s the way they happen, divine Providence only ‘sees’ this” (Boethius). It fails to solve the problem of things happening for a reason, so it brings up the idea that “things still happen as they happen” and that the free will that we all seem to have is made up to make us believe that we have control of our own fate, future and lives, yet it has been set up for us by God; “Freedom of the human will is destroyed”.
People have become dependent on the idea that whatever God has foreseen must be true, so they try to fight against it in an attempt to change their path in the future. Those like myself accept whatever comes our way as we go through life and don’t blame anyone but ourselves, because things happen as they do and everything is strictly situational. A majority of people look up to God in hopes of him helping them or, in many cases, to put the blame on someone to avoid the punishment/hardship on their own. The omnipotence of God is contradictory and unrealistic, because one can’t hold the ultimate amount of power over millions of people when he can’t complete a task that we as normal folk can’t complete. He is seen as someone that does all that we cannot do, he is the controller of fate and future for every living being (both human and animal), and he is supposedly the highest power and creator of the world.
I have relied on the Big Bang Theory since I was a child and left myself out of the misery of believing that God was a real being that can control all of the things that happen in my life. Accepting that you are the one and only ruler of your life is just the same as coming to terms with death, and acceptance of that is one of the most difficult missions to accomplish. Various people question why animals are used for food and clothing; some say that God put them on this Earth for that reason, I believe that we are all supposed to follow the rules of Survival of the Fittest- may the best man win. It’s applicable to animals just the same as humans, even though animals have grown to have a lower chance at survival because of the technological improvements humans have made over the years. Everything has a purpose, but not everything has a meaning. The dispute over what God has in store for everyone is just the proof that people are giving an imaginary figure the title of omnipotence.
Growing up amongst family that believes that there is a God who is controlling everything and that believe that he deserves the respect from all of those below him is difficult. Being that I don’t necessarily believe in a God, they find it odd and tell me I’m wrong to think that way. People such as myself depend on the studies of science to prove our various theories of how Earth, humans, plants and animals were created. It’s like arguing about global warming; people believe that it’s caused by human pollution whereas others believe that weather fluctuates and the change in temperature is normal. We are all living beings in a world of conspiracy theories and we have our own perception of everything.
Mavrodes and Boethius have both proven that the arguments about the existence and omnipotence of God is eternal and a paradox. We are told that we are in control of our own fate, yet challenged with the idea that there is someone else controlling it for us. We are told that God is the almighty and powerful, he can do anything and we should show our respect to the man in the sky because he is the reason as to why we are all here. George Mavrodes states: “Nothing that I have said above, of course, goes to prove that God is, in fact, omnipotent. All I have intended to show is that certain arguments intended to prove that He is not omnipotent fail.” He gently expresses the idea that maybe there is something else out there that we aren’t paying attention to because we have all grown close to the idea that God is the only one that rules all. Boethius believed that “acts of free will are not necessary (simple necessity); before they happened, they were able not to happen.” He challenges that we don’t actually get to control our free will because we are not in control of ourselves, but we are convinced to believe that we are in control just so that we can live with that peace within ourselves. Both prove both sides to be valid and true, so it is up to each individual to decide where their belief lies.
