All Quotes By Tag: Omnipotence

“Omnipotence and omniscience are the end of power and knowledge.”

“God in His omnipotence says, ‘Here it is.’ And we in our ignorance say, ‘No it’s not!’ And in the end there it was, and where it is we are not.”

“If God is omniscient, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he is omnipotent, too. Omniscience is associated with future events that cannot be changed. In similar way, it is impossible to change the causal chain leading up to the emergence of these future events, while omnipotence is related to the power to change and re-arrange this causal chain itself. Now the question is whether God can have it in his power to make such a change and re-arrangement? If yes, then God would contradict himself: how can God foreknow something that will not happen because of an alteration of the causal chain leading to its occurrence at a later time? If not, God would contradict himself, too: how can God be Almighty if he cannot alter what he believed to happen at a earlier time?”

“Can God be so powerful as to surrender all power? And the answer was yes!”

“If I were omnipotent and omnibenevolent I wouldn’t be so damn ineffable.”

“Statistics, likelihoods, and probabilities mean everything to men, nothing to God.”

“If that were God’s plan, it’s a bad bargain; I don’t want to have to deal with a God like that…My sense is God and I came to an accommodation with each other a couple of decades ago, where he’s gotten used to the things that I’m not capable of and I’ve come to terms with things he’s not capable of…and we care very much about each other.”

“Omnipotent-benevolent simply means that God is all-powerful and well-meaning.”I understand the concept. It’s just . . . there seems to be a contradiction.”Yes. The contradiction is pain. Man’s starvation, war, sickness . . .”Exactly!’ Chartrand knew the camerlengo would understand. ‘Terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not possibly be both all-powerful and well-meaning. If He loves us and has the power to change our situation, He would prevent our pain, wouldn’t He?’The camerlengo frowned. ‘Would He?’Chartrand felt uneasy. Had he overstepped his bounds? Was this one of those religious questions you just didn’t ask? ‘Well . . . if God loves us, and He can protect us, He would have to. It seems He is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help.”Do you have children, Lieutenant?’Chartrand flushed. ‘No, signore.”Imagine you had an eight-year-old son . . . would you love him?”Of course.”Would you let him skateboard?’Chartrand did a double take. The camerlengo always seemed oddly “in touch” for a clergyman. ‘Yeah, I guess,’ Chartrand said. ‘Sure, I’d let him skateboard, but I’d tell him to be careful.”So as this child’s father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?”I wouldn’t run behind him and mollycoddle him if that’s what you mean.”But what if he fell and skinned his knee?”He would learn to be more careful.’The camerlengo smiled. ‘So although you have the power to interfere and prevent your child’s pain, you would choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons?”Of course. Pain is part of growing up. It’s how we learn.’The camerlengo nodded. ‘Exactly.”

“It comes as no surprise to find [Norman] Mailer embracing [in the book On God] a form of Manicheanism, pitting the forces of light and darkness against each other in a permanent stand-off, with humanity as the battlefield. (When asked if Jesus is part of this battle, he responds rather loftily that he thinks it is a distinct possibility.) But it is at points like this that he talks as if all the late-night undergraduate talk sessions on the question of theism had become rolled into one. ‘How can we not face up to the fact that if God is All-Powerful, He cannot be All-Good. Or She cannot be All-Good.’Mailer says that questions such as this have bedevilled ‘theologians’, whereas it would be more accurate to say that such questions, posed by philosophers, have attempted to put theologians out of business. A long exchange on the probability of reincarnation (known to Mailer sometimes as “karmic reassignment”) manages to fall slightly below the level of those undergraduate talk sessions. The Manichean stand-off leads Mailer, in closing, to speculate on what God might desire politically and to say: ‘In different times, the heavens may have been partial to monarchy, to communism, and certainly the Lord was interested in democracy, in capitalism. (As was the Devil!)’I think it was at this point that I decided I would rather remember Mailer as the author of Harlot’s Ghost and The Armies of the Night.”