The issue of Omnipotence

One frequently encounters one form or another of the question "Could God make an object/rock/etc so large/heavy/etc that He Himself wouldn't be able to move/destroy it." My response (and all the reasoning here is my own, although it's likely others have figured it out on their own) is "Yes. In fact He has already done so."

That's the short answer, but it isn't very instructional. So for those who have patience, I provide the long answer. There is a medium answer, but it overlooks several important aspects.

The first thing I notice about this question is that it isn't really about God. Rather, it is about the definition of 'omnipotence'. It takes a particular definition of the term to satisfy the scoffer; a definition worthy of a small child, and a stubborn one at that; one unwilling to learn. Suppose I can do anything at all, but my capacity is such that I may need a thousand years or more to construct tools and gather resources, and formulate plans - stuff like that. Am I 'omnipotent'? Oooh! The experienced scoffer has to think about that one. The inexperienced just says "no".

There is a great danger here. If I can make an object over the course of 1000 years that I won't immediately be able to move/destroy/etc. that would mean the question can be answered in the affirmative, and the conflict is resolved because I would subsequently, after preparation, be able to move/destroy/etc. the object.

The definition of 'omnipotence' has to be sufficiently narrow, also. For a broad definition always results in an affirmitive answer. The whole question can be defined as a given task, and since the broadly-defined 'omnipotent' is capable of performing any task, the answer is affirmative. Only when the given task is broken up, which a broad definition does not require, can any trouble arise.

It should now be abundantly clear that the question is about the concept of omnipotence. Note that the question isn't restricted to God. I just got done asking if I would be omnipotent if I possessed certain qualities, and there was nothing wrong with that. Of course defining terms makes sense under some circumstances; basically any time there is reasonable potential for miscommunication. When we see that any entity described as 'omnipotent' would get the same results, we see that the issue isn't about God at all. It is about any omnipotent entity.

I was happy with this response initially, until it occurred to me that there's more involved. It goes a little deeper. When one says "God is omnipotent," what does that mean? I don't mean the term; I mean the statement itself. You see, some view the statement as describing God, while others view it as defining a god. Nothing that exists can be defined. Things that exist can be categorized and described; but they cannot be defined. You cannot pick up a stone and define it. You can define the term 'stone', and your definition may or may not apply. Either way, you haven't altered the stone by defining the term used to categorize it.

Things which do not exist are subject to definition. So right away we see that one's worldview alters one's approach to the simple statement, "God is omnipotent". Those who insist God does not exist see the statement as defining God, and they feel cheated when they perceive games to be played with a defining term. Those who understand that the statement is descriptive are able to understand that whether or not we have sufficient terms and intellectual capacity to accurately describe God, God will still be as He is.

Since the scoffer views the believer's response as a retreat from properly defining God, it is somewhat unsatisfactory. Remember that the scoffer is unwilling to grant that a descriptive process is involved.

So it's time to meet the bogus question on its own bogus terms. Well, almost. My goal is to glorify God, so permit me to apply the question to an hypothetically omnipotent Satan. If Satan is omnipotent, by the very shallow, narrow, juvenile definition the scoffer must advocate, we obtain the mutually desired result: Satan cannot make an object which Satan will not subsequently be able to act upon in the specified manner. His omnipotence must fail either on the creative side, or on the subsequent acting side. The "clever" trick is too much for Satan to overcome.

But God is not Satan! God has recourse to a two-step process. Just to make it obvious, for the first step I'll posit that He creates a small feather. Not even a grand eagle feather. Something like the delicate down I imagine a tiny hummingbird may possess. This may appear to be a jest, but it is not. For the second step is the one that distinguishes God from ALL other entities. The second step is for God to promise never to move/destroy/etc the feather.

Is not the only Living God splendid! He excels above all excellence! He alone can meet this challenge. Not you, or I, or Satan, or even the angels who have not fallen. Not anyone else. We do not have recourse to this two-step method. And He has indeed met the challenge already. He has given us His Word, and it shall not be altered forevermore. Amen.