Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • 3
    Omnipotence entails that the being can do anything logically possible. That includes power to will things, i.e. free will. If it chooses to take away any of its powers, free will or some other, then it will no longer be omnipotent. However, it may choose instead merely not to exercise some of its powers. So it may remain omnipotent but will nothing at all, and let something else determine its actions. That way it will behave as if it has no free will. Commented Jul 17, 2021 at 14:17
  • 2
    I'm not very familiar with this area, but you might want to research Thomist discussions of God and potential. Aquinas argued that God has no potential; he is all actual, which is why he cannot change. I believe others have argued that having no potential means that you cannot act or that you cannot choose how to act because making a decision is the resolving of a potential. Commented Jul 17, 2021 at 19:09
  • 1
    Well, ability to do anything means free will, as doing something is the ability to convert will into action. Commented Jul 20, 2021 at 19:29
  • 2
    It is not logically possible to will things. People want what they like, and don't choose what they like because their choices depend on what they like. Anyway, omnipotence is a totally bogus concept out of touch with reality, don't loose your time with it. Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 11:23
  • 2
    Why are we accepting the assumption that an omnipotent being would only be able to exercise their power in a way that followed the rules of formal systems that we've created in order to make sense of the world? Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 22:57