God, Omnipotence and Omnipresence
Is God in a state of existence? “Omnibustance” and not an unmanifestant? I’ll try to explain myself.
Omnipotence is an ultimate state of existence, where Alpha is truly “all-powerful”, unlike omnipotence, omnipotence is not a power, but a state of existence. You don’t wield it like a weapon or an ability, you just are. So according to this definition of omnipotence, then it creates the paradox that “is omnipotence possible” because if omnipotence is all power, this power should be able to create something that is even a little stronger than it, but if that’s true, then is it really omnipotence? This is one of the logical flaws of the concept of “omnipotence” Being powerful means that it can do everything but it is also a limitation, because it can’t even do anything. Nothing would make it not omnipotent, but not being omnipotent means that it is not omnipotent: the omnipotent paradox. That is why there are two levels of omnipotence, the first is omnipotence limited to its own set of powers and the limitations of its verse. The second is true omnipotence without any limitations and that is what I call true omnipotence. Now regarding true omnipotence, there is another category of omnipotence that is beyond it: \”omnivastance\”, omniscients are the only ones truly above true omnipotence, omnivstance is the literal definition of all possible power. Actually, true omnipotence is the act of doing everything, right? So omnivstance is not the act of doing everything, but rather it is the literal power of everything, it is what makes everything happen. When I say \”everything\”, the whole concept of \”everything\” is included within this world, omnivstance is what everything even is. It’s not limited by words, logic or anything, now another way to explain it, we can simplify omnipotence (and by simplify I mean make it even more general) to the point of: “Anything that can happen will happen.” So to make omnipresence easier to understand, we simplify it as well, omnipresence is “anything that can happen does happen.” So, for example, a true omnipotent being can do anything, right? But he cannot create an omnipotent being that is even a little stronger than him, this is because the nature of omnipotence means that if he does create a stronger version of himself, he will not be more omnipotent, this creates the paradox of omnipotence, on the other hand, omniscience is not limited to the concept of action and power, omnipresence is everything, doing one thing does not affect another thing, it just happens, therefore omnipresence “is” everything, it is the very reason and fuel behind every action and every act, it may be a paradox, it may be incomprehensible, but that is what it is, it has no limitation because everything is, omnipresence is the literal essence behind the very concept of “being”, it is a concept, law, idea and fact.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would be happy to translate into spoken Hebrew. I didn’t understand anything. Please think about clear and concise wording. Length and repetition do not cover up a lack of clarity.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I say that omnipotence is a power, the ability to do everything, but it has a limitation, it cannot create something that is above it without losing its “omnipotence”, which creates a paradox. On the other hand, omnipresence is not a power but a state of existence, it does not “do” everything but is everything.
For example: omnipotence is like a painter who paints every possible picture, but omnipresence is the canvas itself on which all pictures exist, it is the material that allows every creation to exist in the first place.. So my question is whether it would be correct to say that God is not “only” omnipotent, but that He exists in a state of omnipresence (which I defined earlier).
I'm sorry, but I don't understand anything here.
The Almighty has no limitations. He cannot do what is above him because there is no such thing. Therefore, the paradox of omnipotence is illusory.
If the claim is that God is everything, one can still ask what his powers are? What can he do? If you say that he is not only omnipotent, you are saying that he is also that but also something else. So I will ask again: what can he do? Whatever you answer to that will bring you back to the problem of omnipotence.
Furthermore, if he is everything, then where are we and the world? Do we not exist? The parable of the cloth and the paint is incomprehensible to me and I see no connection to the discussion.
In short, to me it sounds like a pun on the word.
The fact that there is no higher does not mean that omnipotence itself is not limited by its nature. If all-powerful means the ability to do everything, then even the creation of a being that is above all-powerful is “something” that must be possible. But if it is possible, then the initial omnipotence is no longer truly supreme. And if it is not possible, then omnipotence is not truly absolute, but limited. That is, the paradox arises from the definition itself.
“What can he do?” , here is exactly the difference I am trying to clarify. The question itself assumes that God is defined through action, but omnipresence is not defined through action, but through its very being. It is not something that acts on reality, it is reality. It is not a force that creates things, but the existence that allows them to be in the first place.
And regarding the canvas and the painter, the point is that omnipotence is a force that acts, while omnipresence is the platform that allows all forces to act. The artist (painter) can do everything in his field of creation, to paint any possible picture. But he still needs a platform on which all these works will exist. Omnipresence is not the painter, it is the platform itself, the being that allows every action and every power to exist in the first place
And we exist within this being, like a painting that exists on the canvas. This does not cancel our existence.
Your first sentence is nonsense. See it briefly here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9F/
Therefore, the omnipotence paradox is not a paradox at all and there is no need to look for solutions to it. It is just a lack of understanding.
The second part of your statement is an evasion. Define it however you want (I don't understand the definition you proposed at all, but it really doesn't matter). I still ask what that object defined in this way can do? You yourself say that it can do everything, since it is also omnipotent and not just your omni-something. So we are back to the same paradox (which, as mentioned, is not a paradox at all): can it do something beyond it (a stone that it cannot lift).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
