---------------------------------

Matthew asked:

The God Thing

I have a problem with the idea of God as an omnipotent being. Does it make any sense? For surely
the whole essence of a being (or at least a major part of it) is to have a point of view. And what is a
point of view? It is a very particular way of looking at the world consisting of desires, hopes, likes,
dislikes, fears etc. And if this is so then surely any sort of being cannot be omnipotent, for the very
idea of point of view which is so essential to the idea of being is one which necessitates privation of
experience?

Does this make any sense?

The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. (I Corinthians: 3:20)

Yes, Matthew it makes excellent sense. To be properly described as "omnipotent" a God would have
to be capable of doing absolutely anything at all. This has traditionally led philosophers to have a bit
of fun by trying to think of "fallacies of omnipotence" — the things God simply couldn't, logically, do.
These include, "Could God make another God more powerful than Herself?", "Could God make a
stone too heavy for God to lift?", "Could God annihilate Himself?", and so on. The point is that,
whether or not God has done these things, it is thought to be enough to have conceived of some
impossible act for it to be shown that there are some things which God cannot do, therefore either an
omnipotent God is a fiction, or the real God isn't omnipotent. Unfortunately, entertaining though these
fallacies are, they only show that God cannot be illogical. And the idea of God being bound by the
rules of logic is not something with which many believers seem to have difficulty.

However, the way you put the problem, centering it on the idea of 'point of view' is much more
interesting. I think, though, the difficulties of personal experience are more applicable to the problem
of God's omniscience than of his omnipotence.

Omniscience means "all knowing". In the traditional view of most monotheistic religions, God knows
all things. Most especially, and central to much religious understanding, is the idea that God knows
what I know. In other words, that God knows what each person is thinking, feeling, intending,
understanding. As it says in The Book of Chronicles (28:9) "the Lord searcheth all hearts, and
understandeth all the imaginations of the mind", and in the Koran (Sura 6) "Allah knows your secret
thoughts." This is a vital centre of belief, for without accurate knowledge of His people's thoughts and
intentions, then He cannot stand in judgement over them without risk of error. But, as you have begun
to see, this cannot be the case.

I know what I know, and I know that all my perceptions and beliefs are clouded by the limitations of
my knowledge. Say, for instance, that I can't understand Arabic. If that is so, then if you show me a
word in that language, then I simply cannot see, no matter how hard I look, anything other than a
shape on paper, albeit a rather decorative one. On the other hand, someone who does know Arabic
will find it equally impossible to see an Arabic word without putting a particular meaning on to it.

So, if God were able to somehow able to access the contents of my mind, what He saw there could
never be the world as I see it — it would always be clouded by God's own particular knowledge. If
nothing else, His appreciation of my mind would be different to my own understanding in that He
would know my mind at the same time as being aware of the contents of other minds. Now I have no
such knowledge of other minds, so it cannot reasonably be said that God would know my thoughts as
I know them. And what could 'knowing my mind' mean other than being able to think as I think? The
best that God might be able to do is to read minds, to understand selves, in much the same way as
you are reading a part of my mind, my self, by reading these words. No matter what care I take in
writing, it is inevitable that our understanding of individual concepts will differ, because our reading of
them is made up of our individual likes and desires and hopes and fears. And that is not omniscience.

I'm afraid the concept of God is far from logical, so that, any argument about the nature of His abilities
will tend to lack logic as well. What we know of God we know by faith, emotion and tradition. As to
whether some privation of experience is necessary to Being, by which I presume rational being, I am
afraid I cannot know, for I am not omniscient.

You might care to have a look at:

http://www.str.org/free/reflections/philosophy/cangodma.htm

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm

Glyn Hughes

If I understand what you mean when you write that the whole essence of a Being is to have a point of
view, I am afraid I can't agree with you. After all, lots of things "have being" or exist, but do not have
points of view since they don't have minds, and there cannot be a point of view without a mind. Desks
or stars "have being" but don't have minds, and so, don't have points of view. In any case, it seems to
me that omnipotence concerns the power of God, and has nothing to do with his point of view.

Kenneth Stern