Proving God's Omnipotence

Before we begin our journey into the analysis of omnipotence, we need to frame this term within a particular definition, so that our discussion of the word will stay focused and clear. The word omnipotent itself means something having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force. Or in more modern and easy to understand terms: all-powerful. However, there is a caveat to such a simple definition. If we impose the meaning of the word omnipotence itself as the functional definition of one of God’s divine attributes, we encounter some problems. These problems were recognized early on in church history. The first problem that I will address is whether divine omnipotence means the ability to do anything, or whether it means the ability to a particular set of things. “But how art thou omnipotent, if thou art not capable of all things?” According to Anselm, we need to distinguish acts of doing into two categories. One category is the act of doing something that is powerful. The second category is the act of doing something that is impotent, or showing weakness. When a being performs an act that is impotent, it also gives the forces which are contrary to that being greater power over itself. An example that Anselm gives to demonstrate an impotent act is the ability to become corrupted. Being corruptible is worse than being incorruptible. When you are corruptible,

in a world of imperfection proves his existence. God is also the highest conceivable idea of

In the argument with McCloskey about using “proofs” to establish a case for Gods existence I would first agree with McCloskey that we should not use “proofs” for Gods existence since “proofs” cannot be a 100% proof of Gods existence. But there are two arguments that can help explain the existence of God. The first is the best explanation approach which is the best explanation for the things we witness. Another classical argument is cumulative case approach, in this approach we use more than one argument to make a case for Gods existence. Both of these approaches to the existence of God is easier to understand than just the “proof” argument. We must also understand the defeaters of the arguments and also that the God of the Bible is

Vocabulary Words Caprice (n) - a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior No one could better enjoy liberty, yet no one could submit with more grace than she did to constraint and caprice. (Page 4-7) Victor, throughout the course of the novel, grows with a greater mercurial temperament. He exemplified the word capricious. At one moment, he could be joyous with Elizabeth and then the next moment turn to despair as he thought of his horrible creation which snuffed the life of his youngest brother, William and dearest friend, Clerval.

The ontological argument can be stated in this way: “God is the greatest being imaginable. One of the aspects of perfection or greatness is existence. Thus, God exists.” Or put another way—“The fact that God can be conceived means that he must exist.”

I found that Lewis' argument for God’s omnipotence being limited to that which is possible intriguing, but if I may be bold not wholly biblical. Lewis’ argument is that God’s power is limited to that which is “intrinsically possible,” that Is things in which He has established as law. However, he does not to assume that miracles do not occur, for miracles could be described as God suspending the reality of His laws, not simultaneously acting in two opposing ways. For it is not as though God's “power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense.” Nonsense is precisely described by Lewis as an “intrinsic impossibly."An example of an intrinsic impossibility that Lewis explains is that, “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it.” What he reckons from this statement is that one is saying nothing at all if what he is saying is

Therefore, it is not the case that God is an omnipotent and wholly good being.

A recent video has gone viral showing a statue of Jesus Christs opening then closing his eyes. Those in attendance claim it to be real, however, it's most likely fake. While religious hoax's like this are prevalent, there are plenty of other sources claiming to have proof of God.

The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.

First, many theologians have assumed that if God is all-powerful, omnipotent, which the Bible clearly teaches (e.g., 1Chron 29:11; Jer 32:17; Mt 19:26; Rev 1:8; 19:6), that nothing in his creation can ever thwart his will. At the very least, it is reasoned, God

For centuries, philosophers, theists, and theologians alike have claimed that God is all-powerful. This is the divine attribute of God typically referred to as omnipotence. This attribute needs to be fleshed out, but, essentially, what this is saying is that God can do anything; however, is this true? There is an infamous paradox about God’s omnipotence that runs like this: If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift? In either case, God cannot do something. Either God cannot create the rock or God can create the rock, but then cannot lift it. This puts the theist in a paradox. How can God do anything, yet not be able to do something?

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.

Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Thomas Aquinas, and St Anselm, believe that we have proven that God exists through our senses, logic, and experience. Others such as Soren Kierkegaard, and Holbach, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. The believer tends to rely on faith for his belief, and claim they do not need proof in order to believe in the God's existence. The atheist however, tends to lean more towards common sense and reason, such as science, or the theory of evolution for an answer. The determinalist for example believes that all actions are caused by nature,

Aquinas says we experience causality Nothing is the cause of itself causes are other than their effects. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes. If there were an infinite regress, the effects we experience here & now would not exist. Therefore, there must be some first cause and this we call "God." There is also the law of argument by design, we naturally work towards a goal, we also lack the knowing of the outcome, but we reach our goal by being pointed in the direction, therefore there is an intelligent being pointing us in the direction and that would be proof of “God”.

Although the arguments on why it would make sense for God to be immutable may be convincing it is important then to see if these arguments can be contradictory, which I believe they can. The argument regarding God’s absolute perfection is claiming that God cannot change because God is already perfect, if God is perfect then there is no need for change (Quinn & Taliaferro, 1999). Although, whens looking at this argument one can question,