Q&A: God, Omnipotence, and Omnivastance
God, Omnipotence, and Omnivastance
Question
Is God in a state of existence called “omnivastance,” rather than being omnipotent? I’ll try to explain myself.
Omnivastance is an ultimate state of existence, in which an alpha is truly “all-capable.” Unlike omnipotence, omnivastance is not a power but a state of being. You don’t wield it like a weapon or an ability; you simply are it. So according to this definition of omnipotence, it is what creates the paradox of “is omnipotence possible?” Because if omnipotence is all power, then that power should be able to create something even slightly stronger than itself. But if that is true, then is it really omnipotence? That is one of the logical flaws in the concept of “omnipotence.” To possess power means it can do everything, but that is also a limitation, because it cannot even do nothing. Nothing will make it not all-powerful, but not being all-powerful means it is not all-powerful: the omnipotence paradox. That is why there are two levels of all-powerfulness. The first is all-powerful but limited to its set of powers and the limits of its verse. The second is true all-powerfulness without any limitations whatsoever, and that is what I call true omnipotence. Now regarding true omnipotence, there is another category beyond it: “omnivastance.” Omnivastant beings are the only ones truly above true omnipotence. Omnivastance is the literal definition of all possible power. Basically, true omnipotence is the act of doing everything, right? So omnivastance is not the act of doing everything, but the literal power of everything; it is what makes everything happen. When I say “everything,” the entire concept of “everything” is included within this world. Omnivastance is what everything even is. It is 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: “everything that can happen will happen.” So in order to make omnivastance easier to understand, we simplify it too: omnivastance is “everything that can happen does happen.” So, for example, a true omnipotent being can do everything, right? Except that it cannot create an omnipotent being that is even slightly stronger than itself. That is because the nature of omnipotence causes it so that if it does create a stronger version of itself, it will no longer be omnipotent. That creates the omnipotence paradox. On the other hand, omnivastance is not limited to the concept of doing and power. Omnivastance is everything; doing one thing does not affect another thing, it simply happens. Therefore omnivastance “is” everything. It is the very reason and fuel behind every action and every agent. It may be paradoxical, it may be incomprehensible, but that is what it is. It has no limitation because everything is it. Omnivastance is the literal essence behind the very concept of “being.” It is a concept, a law, an idea, and a fact.
Answer
I’d be glad to see this translated into spoken Hebrew. I didn’t understand a thing. Please try to phrase it clearly and briefly. Length and repetition do not make up for lack of clarity.
Discussion on Answer
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand a thing here.
An all-powerful being has no limitation whatsoever. It cannot do something above itself because there is no such thing. Therefore the omnipotence paradox 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 He is not only omnipotent, then you are saying He is that too, plus something else. So again I ask: what can He do? Whatever you answer will bring you back to the problem of omnipotence.
Moreover, if He is everything, then where are we and the world? Do we not exist? The analogy of the canvas and the paint is unclear to me, and I don’t see any connection to the discussion.
In short, to me this sounds like mere wordplay.
The fact that there is nothing above it does not mean that omnipotence itself is not limited by its own nature. If omnipotence means the ability to do everything, then creating a being that is above an all-powerful being is also “something” that should be possible. But if that is possible, then the original omnipotence is no longer truly supreme. And if it is not possible, then omnipotence is not truly absolute, but limited. In other words, the paradox arises from the definition itself.
“What can He do?” — that is exactly the distinction I’m trying to clarify. The question itself assumes that God is defined through action, but omnivastance is not defined through doing; it is defined through His very being. He is not something that acts upon reality; He is reality. He is not a power that creates things, but the existence that makes them possible in the first place.
And regarding the canvas and the painter, the point is that omnipotence is a power that operates, whereas omnivastance is the underlying substrate that allows all powers to operate. The artist (the painter) can do everything within the domain of his creation, paint every possible picture. But he still needs a substrate on which all those creations can exist. Omnivastance is not the painter; it is the substrate itself, the being that allows every action and every power to exist in the first place.
And we exist within that being, like a painting that exists on the canvas. That does not negate our existence.
Your first sentence is nonsense. See 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 simply a misunderstanding.
The second part of what you wrote is evasive. Define Him however you like (I do not understand the definition you proposed at all, but that really does not matter). I am still asking what that entity so defined can do. You yourself say that He can do everything, since He is also omnipotent and not only your omni-whatever. So we are back to the same paradox again (which, as stated, is not really a paradox at all): can He do something beyond Himself (a stone He cannot lift).
What I’m saying is that omnipotence is a power, the ability to do everything, but it contains a limitation: it cannot create something above itself without losing its status as “all-powerful,” and that creates a paradox. By contrast, omnivastance is not a power but a state of existence; it does not “do” everything, it is everything.
For example: omnipotence is like a painter who paints every possible picture, but omnivastance is the canvas itself on which all pictures exist; it is the substance that makes every creation possible in the first place. So my question is whether it would be correct to say that God is not “only” omnipotent, but exists in a state of omnivastance (as I defined earlier).