Is G-d omnipotent?

[Traveler]

In the debate of determinism verses free will there is a related concept that is often over looked. That is the omnipotence of G-d. This is related to the free will verses determinism debate. This came to me from another thread in another part of the forum when a poster (non-LDS) stated that G-d’s omnipotence excludes counter or exclusive things - like the omnipotence of G-d does not deal with G-d creating a stone he cannot lift. But I realized that there are exclusive things that if G-d is omnipotent cannot also exist or be.

Thus my question is - If G-d has granted, given or allows any power to man -- for example free will, then G-d no longer is all powerful - that in truth there is power outside of G-d that determines things he cannot. If man has free will then it proves that there is power outside of G-d to determine something. Therefore G-d is not omnipotent (all powerful) if man is free to determine his own fate.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

Alma 42: 13, 22, 25

Heck just read the whole chapter

[Vort]

"Omnipotent" means "possessing all power that actually exists and is not just a meaningless verbal knot." God cannot save us in our sins, but this does not make God less than omnipotent; rather, it simply means that "salvation in sin" is meaningless, an oxymoron.

[Anddenex]

I am unsure how our "moral agency" determines God is not omnipotent? I am unsure how if God grants us any privileges that this lessens his omnipotence?

It would seem to me the simple fact that he is able to give us this power, then he must have the power to actually give it. Is a person able to give power, while still maintaining power? Yes.

Our electricity is given to us by another source of power, however, the power given doesn't determine the electricity source to be without power.

[annewandering]

Being able and doing are not always the same thing. He GAVE us free agency. He could take it back. He wont because He is not only omnipotent, He is perfect.

[rameumptom]

God did not create us ex nihilo. Matter is eternal, co-eternal with God. Therefore there is a part of each of us that is independent of God's creation (albeit still within his power of forming and organizing).

Most Christian philosophers consider "omnipotence" to mean that God is able to do all things that are not contradictory of his power and characteristics. For example, God cannot be absolutely blissful, otherwise he would not care whether we suffered or not. Instead, there is a balance between his attributes: God's charity is greater than his ability for bliss.

So, God is considered to have the "maximum" amount of an attribute that is possible for him to have. This then, defines what omnipotence, omniscience, and all the other omni-attritubes he has.

[Traveler]

One of the great lessons of this life comes from the simple concept spoken of by Jesus in scripture – “Seek and you will find, ask and it shall be given, knock and it shall be opened.” The promise (divine covenant) is that until one takes the time to study, investigate, ponder, consider, meditate and in every way possible seek they will not come to complete understanding – even by divine revelation. It is not just that G-d will not reveal to us what we do not what to hear. G-d will only reveal that portion to us that we are willing to take the opportunity and pay the price to learn. G-d will not reveal things we do not want to make an effort to learn.

Part of my journey is to learn (ask, seek and knock concerning) everything I can about G-d. This has become a prime life time study and interest of mine. Strange as it is to others on this forum, one of the great principles in the character of G-d is not power. What an odd paradox; that the greatest and most powerful being associated with our universe is not a seeker or consolidator or power. In fact, G-d is quite the opposite. G-d is the very example of power distribution and delegation. Rather than reserve power to himself – he delegates his power to others. I can provide endless examples, both in scripture and in practical experience. One such example is the casting Lucifer from heaven – as important as that was – the task was delegated to Michael.

Though many may desire an omnipotent G-d to be worthy of their worship – I have come to understand the better (more accurate) way to describe G-d’s character is “meek” rather than omnipotent.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

D&C 109:77 O Lord God Almighty, hear us in these our petitions, and answer us from heaven, thy holy habitation, where thou sittest enthroned, with glory, honor, power, majesty, might, dominion, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and an infinity of fulness, from everlasting to everlasting.

[Praetorian_Brow]

God is what we want him to be.

Personally, I haven't met him, but I am sure you upstanding folks would know him and wouldn't mind introducing me.

[Vort]

God is what we want him to be.

Personally, I haven't met him, but I am sure you upstanding folks would know him and wouldn't mind introducing me.

Two things I don't understand:

1. If you're atheist, why do you present yourself as LDS?

2. Why are you participating on this forum?

Or were you perhaps using some form of wry humor or wit that totally escaped me?

[Praetorian_Brow]

I feel as if I have been accused of vile fiendish sorcery, then again, if I am as he has accused, I fail to understand why I would wallow in my own guilt and dare to expect more from my fellows.

[Anddenex]

God is what we want him to be.

God is what he actually is, not what others want him to be. If God is what we want him to be then there is no God, there is no truth, and there is no purpose to life but one law, "Survival of the Fittest."

Thus there would be no wrong, there is no right, as long as we personally survived.

Personally, I haven't met him, but I am sure you upstanding folks would know him and wouldn't mind introducing me.

If you want to meet God then you must make personal decisions each day, as others, who have actually seen him.

I feel as if I have been accused of vile fiendish sorcery, then again, if I am as he has accused

Vort's response appears to be an inquiry not an accusation, but then again maybe someone as "upstanding" as yourself merely misunderstood the question?

[Praetorian_Brow]

Fair enough, but to conclude that there is no God, based on the assumption that the traits and characteristics that you have imagined him to have is much the same as concluding that our Heavenly Father is the only reason any concept exists. Such a thought ignores our own ability to adapt and improve. If I was to wholeheartedly agree with the idea that anything in life was none of my design, anything that I had worked for, was due to God's omnipotence or direction, then I would be less likely to understand the reasons for being here.

Indeed it was an accusation as I have been born and raised in the church and for a member to level that suspicion in a public place is a stupendously poor social decision. I do find it amusing that the above poster assumes their condescension is worth their time. That being said, my relationship with God is as good as I want it to be and none of what you have assumed about that relationship is worth the salt that has been added.

Excuse my wry wit, as it is in no way intended to diminish faith. If anything, I was pointing out the hubris in imagining traits of a person who we agree is the Alpha and Omega.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I am unsure how our "moral agency" determines God is not omnipotent?

I wonder about the free agency and omnipotence question also. May I give you an example?

One of my worst nightmares...I was in a house alone and 4 men broke in. They were asking me about something (something they wanted to steal) and I knew nothing about it. One of them stepped closer during the talking and touched me in a way I felt was inappropriate. I elbowed him as hard as I could in his solar plexus.

I thought that would solve the matter, but it made things worse. My action seemed to send a message to the others. I could see it in their eyes...they weren't planning it before, but they were now...gang rape.

My first thought was to pray...

BUT wait! People tell me that Heavenly Father did not stop me from being abused as a child...for years!...because he can't take interfere with people's free will. So what point in praying now?

I had tried to fight and it made things worse. I thought to pray, but for what purpose.

I was doomed...

That was my thought as I woke up. Very likely I had similar thoughts as a child...no hope, no where to turn...

Since I had this nightmare, it is hard for me to ask for anything in my prayers...I just don't know how "that" works any more. So mostly I thank Heavenly Father for the blessings that I see in my life and I talk to him about how I feel about things, but I rarely ask for anything any more.

If anyone has any suggestions, I would love to hear them.

What does this have to do with omnipotence? Everything. To me it is everything, and I truly do not know the answer. I know God is real and that He loves me. I know in an eternal sense He will protect me...but in the here and now. No, my life is proof that He does not protect us in the way we would hope.

Sorry...

[Anddenex]

Fair enough, but to conclude that there is no God, based on the assumption that the traits and characteristics that you have imagined him to have is much the same as concluding that our Heavenly Father is the only reason any concept exists.

Please note, the characteristics God has have been delivered to us by those who have personally experienced his reality and his character. Adam knew God and his character. Moses knew God and his Character. Nephi knew God and his character. Joseph Smith knew God and his character. The character of God isn't imagined in the least. It is our purpose to understand his character as we have been taught by those who have personally experienced his character and have been taught by his spirit.

Such a thought ignores our own ability to adapt and improve. If I was to wholeheartedly agree with the idea that anything in life was none of my design, anything that I had worked for, was due to God's omnipotence or direction, then I would be less likely to understand the reasons for being here.

This is where we disagree. Such thought enlightens ones idea that we can improve, knowing our potential and knowing what we ultimately are able to become. I adapt, as a result of my faith in God, and faith in others to teach correct principles. God's omnipotence is what allows us to grow and to become better than we are. The more we understand God and his characteristics, the more we understand the reason why we are here.

Indeed it was an accusation as I have been born and raised in the church and for a member to level that suspicion in a public place is a stupendously poor social decision.

I believe Vort was pretty clear it was a question, sincere question, especially when he added at the end of his statement,

"Or perhaps you were using some for of wry humor or wit that totally escaped me?"

The reference of being a member, born and raised, doesn't verify any compelling argument that you knew it to be an accusation; thus, I could easily respond in a similar tone as being a member born and raised a person to call a question an accusation in a public forum is a "stupendously poor social decision."

I do find it amusing that the above poster assumes their condescension is worth their time. That being said, my relationship with God is as good as I want it to be and none of what you have assumed about that relationship is worth the salt that has been added.

Indeed, it is also amusing for a person to call out a person's condescending statement while making condescending statements previously...or was it that the above poster above was simply mimicking the tone previously used by the "above poster"?

Excuse my wry wit, as it is in no way intended to diminish faith. If anything, I was pointing out the hubris in imagining traits of a person who we agree is the Alpha and Omega.

I am trying to figure out why this wasn't your response in the first place to Vort. Either way, I'll have to pay more attention myself and recognize the wry wit.

[Anddenex]

I wonder about the free agency and omnipotence question also. May I give you an example?

What does this have to do with omnipotence? Everything. To me it is everything, and I truly do not know the answer. I know God is real and that He loves me. I know in an eternal sense He will protect me...but in the here and now. No, my life is proof that He does not protect us in the way we would hope.

Sorry...

What a horrible dream...ya, I can't imagine anyone calling this a pleasant dream. I am not understanding the "Sorry" at the end of the page either. Sorry, that you have a hard time with asking for things? Sorry, I disagree with you?

Again, I am unsure how our moral agency defines God not being omnipotent. The dreams doesn't verify God is without power.

We have in scripture where God has delivered. We have modern experiences of where God has delivered. I remember reading an Ensign from a father in South America who raised his hand to the square and thwarted a mob from coming into the home and raping the women.

What I have not yet understood is why at times The Lord intervenes and why at times he does not. We are told in scripture, in light of our moral agency, with God all things are possible. This is an absolute statement, with God all things are possible.

Also, as I have been taught and understood, the two prophets in Israel will actually be protecting the Jews by the power of God's priesthood. This power will stay the hands of those seeking to destroy Israel.

What is the transition, in our lives, that stems from an all powerful God staying his hand, and at other times it is pretty clear, "All things are possible" with God.

I wish also, I share the same question you ask, how does one ask that they might obtain; thus, if we don't obtain, why ask?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I wrote "sorry" simply because I feel bad introducing such a question. One day in RS the teacher said "God will protect us". I raised my hand and said that if the Newtown Massacre teaches us nothing else it is that God does not always intervene...He does not always "protect" us. .She seemed a bit dismayed and I felt like I was telling a child there is not Santa Claus, but I also believe that true faith should be based in reality, not illusion.

I don't think that you and I disagree. Well, actually I don't know what I think. I'm not trying to argue a point at any rate, I'm just trying to understand. People say that God couldn't protect me (or other children) because he "can't violate free will"....it seems like that would imply that he is in a sense not omnipotent. I like to believe this is the answer, in the sense that He can't violate His own laws, or save us in our sin.

The alternative is that He is omnipotent, but sometimes choses not to intercede...that feels worse actually. Please don't suggest that to me, you can't imagine how damaging that would be...I could not trust my earthly parents, don't tamper with my trust in my Heavenly Father.

For me, I have decided that I won't likely truly understand the answer is in this life. For now, I look at the Savior's life, the things that He suffered, the things Heavenly Father allowed His only Begotten Son to suffer...loneliness, feeling forsaken by his Father, feeling the pain of the sins of the world and their consequences, and dying the most shameful death the Romans could think of...at the request of his own people. THAT gives me faith and courage to continue on accept that I don't know all the answers. For now it is enough to know that He loves me. That Heavenly Father and Christ both love me, and I do know that.

Edited April 6, 2013 by LiterateParakeet

[Anddenex]

I wrote "sorry" simply because I feel bad introducing such a question. One day in RS the teacher said "God will protect us". I raised my hand and said that if the Newtown Massacre teaches us nothing else it is that God does not always intervene...He does not always "protect" us. .She seemed a bit dismayed and I felt like I was telling a child there is not Santa Claus, but I also believe that true faith should be based in reality, not illusion.

I agree. Truth is what will ultimately bring us the greatest peace and joy. Why God intervenes and why he does not I do not understand either. Why God blesses some of his children in this life with riches, and others who are praying for the same blessing are not granted the same gift -- I do not understand either.

[Interiorly]

The omnipotence of God is among the first and most common ideas about God that is forgotten among men and women. We have ideas that God is good and our concepts of good and the laws of the universe, with our common ideas of goodness, are frequently in upheaval when we see pain and suffering. Especially when contrasted with a good God as we define Him.

Agency is also misunderstood by us too, especially by the well-intended-Christian, and as a result a lot of holes pop up in our making sense of ourselves, the world and of God. These results have painful repercussions in ourselves, our neighbor and our loved ones.

Newton's Laws of Motion and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are the two principles in cosmology and quantum mechanics that address this question. It has great importance to us as LDS and as members of the community.

Einstein believed Newton's laws of motion which simply states that "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." That all known and unknown events in history and all events in the calculable and unknown future were put into motion and predetermined from the Big Bang. That through the order and motion of the beginning the end and everything in between life was determinable based on cascading cause and effect upon cascading and effect from "the beginning". Your meeting your neighbor and sharing an egg was known and put into motion in the beginning; so was the birth of your first child and the car accident that killed your mother. Everything was calculated and set in motion.

Then came along Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect. Simply put: Changes happen, you can't know everything from the start because man can choose and change his fate.

Both are right. God is Omniscient and Omnipotent and man has agency. The complexity and extent of the Big Bang of popular science, the Beginning of Christianity is overlooked by scientists and Christians alike. God's wisdom and power were SO extant perfect from everlasting to everlasting as to include seamlessly and beautifully agency inside of predetermine-ism. God, the Universe, set in motion all cause and effect in time, created measure for agency and was so perfect in knowing also knew what agency would meet out for each agent individually as they made their choices.

Determined eternity contains in itself the value of choice and is so perfect in its determinism that even the infinite variety of choice, of agency was known. The fore-knowledge of God is more pervasive and powerful than we imagine; as well as what extent of the agency of man can accomplish.

Agency's rules are few and simple. Its definition even more so. An agent is the sustaining and/or initiating force inside of something that creates movement or change at its beginning or along its course. Agency has only three rules. 1) Higher agents control lesser agents. 2)a.There is always a stronger agent b. God is the strongest agent of all, more than all combined. and 3) The strongest agent always wins.

If I as a stronger agent and being more intelligent, ie. having more laws working together for my common good and fueled by my agency, than a rock I will be able to pick that rock up and throw it. If I am not more intelligent or using my agency the rock falls on my foot and can break my toe. Life happens to be a place where things act or are acted upon and my ability to act was created in the beginning and known from the beginning.

The fact is that God is even more Omnipotent and Omniscient BECAUSE there is agency . Especially when we see his agency satisfy and fulfill the salvation of mankind. (more for another day)

Einstein's Theories of Relativity simply states that Time and Influence are perfectly personal and dependent on the individual's relationship to the Universe by the rate of their progression. This is a great insight in to the salvation of God.

Here are some references. The first two simply define much of the information stated earlier.

EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observer effect - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uncertainty principle - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Interiorly]

Oddly enough a great LDS don't believe in the literalness of God. Many strongly believe in the idea of God, but when things come down to the wire very many don't even believe there is such a being. Having worked in the therapy world for many years I have this is largely the case. Sad but an important consideration.

[Interiorly]

I understand what you are saying. Our view of God is just that..OUR view.

Rarely is our view of God how God views himself. As a result what we think God is and what God really is are two different things. Many will say that we have the correct doctrine of God so we as LDS are right. This is true in word but not in interpretation. If you have been awake during the temple endowment session you will have noticed that we who are sitting there have very well received the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture". If we truly had what we said, we would have what we said and the world would have been transformed as the city of Enoch during the period of the Restoration.

The very mission of the priesthood, as Alma correctly detailed, is to be so filled with the presence of God that all mankind (with the exception of the handful sons of perdition) upon meeting such a person would instantly be touched with the Spirit and experience communion with God himself and from that point forever onward advance in the salvation of God unimpeded.

You have hit the nail in the head. And it is a shame that you are looked down on for doing so.

********The purpose of a member of the church, especially a priesthood bearer, as far as their relationship to the world is two fold, the second is to teach correctly who God is, his character, powers, will and intention and his means of atonement and then to introduce you to God himself as the Father was familiar to the Son so would the Son be familiar to you.********** (John 14,17; D&C1 etc.)

The first is to first have this relationship themselves. The second can not be given unless the first is had. Enoch's ordination even shows this.

You have not been given what you have sought because no one who proposed to you that they had it actually did. If they did the promise in the scriptures mentioned above and many others would come true.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever and is no respecter of persons. Unlearn the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Learn from God who God is as Moroni exhorts.

May God's peace be with you.

God is what we want him to be.

Personally, I haven't met him, but I am sure you upstanding folks would know him and wouldn't mind introducing me.

[Interiorly]

This neither talks of God or uplifts one in need. Intellectually accurate? Yes. Effective in court? Yes. Encouraging of salvation or providing progress in it? No. I am sad to say this but religious intellectualism is no replacement for true and powerful spirituality and it is the latter that people need, not the former. Life is distracting enough and those in search of God are encountering enough struggles to find road blocks on a forum like this. I look forward to all of your uplifting posts and comments in the future :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

One of the great lessons of this life comes from the simple concept spoken of by Jesus in scripture – “Seek and you will find, ask and it shall be given, knock and it shall be opened.” The promise (divine covenant) is that until one takes the time to study, investigate, ponder, consider, meditate and in every way possible seek they will not come to complete understanding – even by divine revelation. It is not just that G-d will not reveal to us what we do not what to hear. G-d will only reveal that portion to us that we are willing to take the opportunity and pay the price to learn. G-d will not reveal things we do not want to make an effort to learn.

Part of my journey is to learn (ask, seek and knock concerning) everything I can about G-d. This has become a prime life time study and interest of mine. Strange as it is to others on this forum, one of the great principles in the character of G-d is not power. What an odd paradox; that the greatest and most powerful being associated with our universe is not a seeker or consolidator or power. In fact, G-d is quite the opposite. G-d is the very example of power distribution and delegation. Rather than reserve power to himself – he delegates his power to others. I can provide endless examples, both in scripture and in practical experience. One such example is the casting Lucifer from heaven – as important as that was – the task was delegated to Michael.

Though many may desire an omnipotent G-d to be worthy of their worship – I have come to understand the better (more accurate) way to describe G-d’s character is “meek” rather than omnipotent.

The Traveler

I think what this shows too is that God's power is obtained, in part, vicariously. Empathy is a godly power. Empathy taken to it's fullest is what allows Christ to pay for our sins and for God to know what we are thinking. It also allows anyone who has such a skill to obtain the glory from acts that they did not personally perform but feel it and experience it as if they did it their self. I think that is an important Godlike characteristic that He screens for in this life when He tells us that loving our neighbor like our self is important. It is a way to screen those that have the potential to really become Celestial. As those who can mourn with those who mourn and rejoice in the success of others are those that have the potential to be like God. God can take all the good things that happened before Him and claim it as His own as He has perfect empathy, as if He has been around forever and in that way has works without end. This is how God can reward us with all that He has in the end but only if we are willing to receive it. By the example of Christ, paying for sins vicariously and giving glory to God as well as all the other examples you are referring to, we know that glory can be shared for acts that the individual did not personally perform. I think it takes a celestial character, though, to be able to experience and enjoy all that is done in the name of God. This is how one member does not make the body and one member cannot say that it doesn't have need for another when it is all shared.

[Interiorly]

God is certainly much of what God is, if not nearly entirely, because of the "water drop effect". When you put a drop of water on a table surface and add another drop to it the drop expands. All knowledge, intelligence, power and glory etc are shared jointly, no matter if you are the 2nd drop or the 1mil drop. There are plenty of parables about this. God indeed has greater power because he is merciful and compassionate and his justice is Faith.

Glory and power and intelligence and knowing is had through open mutual sharing. When my friend has a great day my day increases more than I could have managed on my own because I am connected to my friend. The more friends I have the better. Their victory is mine. In a more perfect sense when God has one of his children increase he increases as well. It is easy to assume that when a child decreases God does too but this isn't the case. Because God is not adversely effected by lies our downward experiences are not detrimental to him but rather progressive in compassion and mercy. Also the salvation of God is not shortened or his ability to save reduced and anyone who he intended to save he will. When he does is another discussion :)

[Interiorly]

It has been said earlier that God is not so much powerful as other things, it being alluded to that Power is a concentric thing instead of a dispersion thing. This idea comes mainly from the perspective that the rich, powerful and influential persons in society are also selfish and destructive to the "good people". Power is not egotistical. Just as in the first part of the presentation of the endowment all things go where they can grow and increase themselves. Power included. There are tons of parables about this too. Money will not go where money can't grow. Sickness will not grow where it can not grow. Power, love, compassion, mercy, luck, industry, compassion, fear, goldfish and wild flowers will NOT go where they can not increase themselves.

If you are without something it is simply because you will not grow it. Simple. Intense wishing, desire and the furry of entitlement can never change that; especially a sense of being wronged. If you villanize power, wealth or influence you will never have it no matter now bi-polar your opinion of it is.

God's reward to us is on the same grounds as his reward to himself. He is, after all, no respecter of persons, including himself. Salvation is of faith that it might be by grace so that the ends of the promise might be sure to all the seed. It had to be free, how else would it be obtained? Free does not mean on sale or for ANY price. We don't do 20% and he comes down and makes up the difference, that's absurd. The grace and condescension of God, his Infinite and Eternal Atonement is just all that. He comes 100% of the way all of the time. God is not sitting on a throne on some planet next to Kolob any less than he is sitting in the chair next to you, your friend and loved one :) It is all on faith. If you thought you exercised faith and didn't receive it was simply because what you thought faith in God was really was not :). He makes the rules and the one law that governs them all is Faith. Otherwise our sense of lack and distance puts doubt in us and with that doubt confidence is lost. :)

I think what this shows too is that God's power is obtained, in part, vicariously. Empathy is a godly power. Empathy taken to it's fullest is what allows Christ to pay for our sins and for God to know what we are thinking. It also allows anyone who has such a skill to obtain the glory from acts that they did not personally perform but feel it and experience it as if they did it their self. I think that is an important Godlike characteristic that He screens for in this life when He tells us that loving our neighbor like our self is important. It is a way to screen those that have the potential to really become Celestial. As those who can mourn with those who mourn and rejoice in the success of others are those that have the potential to be like God. God can take all the good things that happened before Him and claim it as His own as He has perfect empathy, as if He has been around forever and in that way has works without end. This is how God can reward us with all that He has in the end but only if we are willing to receive it. By the example of Christ, paying for sins vicariously and giving glory to God as well as all the other examples you are referring to, we know that glory can be shared for acts that the individual did not personally perform. I think it takes a celestial character, though, to be able to experience and enjoy all that is done in the name of God. This is how one member does not make the body and one member cannot say that it doesn't have need for another when it is all shared.