Omnipotence

Re‑appearing in various forms in our modern world, the concept finds its origin in Western monotheisms. In other systems of thought, the different gods and entities are powerful, magical, but none of them is all‑powerful. Each possesses its own characteristics, powers and limitations. It is within Judaism and its Christian and Muslim heirs that the notion of Omnipotence develops, around the concept of a Unique God. From the earliest Jews, the Almighty (Adonai) is one of the epithets of the Unnamed God. This epithet has been retained by Christians and Muslims.

The intellectual‑creator of the Univers, this God is not constrained by his creation. He creates a world and does whatever he wishes with it, independently of anything he himself has established. This notion of limitation—and of self‑imposed limitation—is fundamental to the concept of omnipotence. It is precisely because of this that the first criticisms of the divine concept arise, arguing that a being that is all‑powerful cannot exist. Whether he creates an element that limits him, or whether he cannot create such an element, total omnipotence is impossible. Fortunately for monotheism, God is not a material being per se. Yet the nature of God lies beyond this discussion.

Thus, for many centuries humanity has evolved in the shadow of divine omnipotence. Playing with destiny, subjected to predestination, and exceedingly weak compared to an untamable nature, human beings live with the awareness of the impossible and of their own limits.

Science and technology change the equation. Little by little, technology assists us, providing ever‑greater possibilities of action and, above all, security against this hostile reality. Gradually we become more confident and learn to dominate nature. We appropriate the concept of Omnipotence through technology. A century ago any announced or realized novelty was described as “magical”; today it is seen as technological. Nevertheless, the fears and hopes attached to these novelties remain the same.

At the same time, the first theorists of psychology integrate this feeling of omnipotence as an intrinsic part of the human psyche. In that era Nietzsche develops the concept of the “will to power”. Unlike the desire merely to be the best or the first, Nietzsche’s will to power exists for its own sake—a will detached from real needs or social imperatives. It is a will to power for its own sake. Similarly, early psychotherapists adopt the concept to describe the earliest developmental stages in children.

Within the scriptural traditions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—the notion of an all‑powerful God is fundamental. In the Middle Ages this notion was famously challenged by the “the paradox of the immovable stone”: if God is all‑powerful, can he create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he cannot lift it, then he is not all‑powerful. This paradox, first formulated by Averroes and later taken up by many thinkers, reflects the medieval view that God’s omnipotence is absolute. Indeed, to the people of that time, omnipotence equated with total power. Fundamentally limited in its possible actions, humanity is aware of its impotence, while simultaneously envisioning a deity without those limitations—one who created us in his own image.

But how should we reread this paradox in a society where possibilities are broader and where we experience a sense of omnipotence?

Apart from theological questions about the nature of God, we can resolve it by integrating limitation into omnipotence. God’s omnipotence is not absolute; rather, his power includes the capacity to set limits. He can create his own limitation. The fact that the stone cannot be lifted does not limit him; rather, the stone is a creation of his own making. Being omnipotent while bearing within himself the possibility of self‑limitation makes him truly all‑powerful. This is why the concept is absent from other spiritualities such as indigenous shamanic traditions or polytheistic religions. In those worldviews each god or entity has its own traits and limits, which do not stem from themselves but from their nature.

Put differently, the maker of everything is also capable of unmaking it. Hence a stone too heavy for him to lift would be only a temporary limitation; he could simply destroy it. The stone ceases to be a limitation per se and becomes an expression of God’s choice at a given moment—to limit his power, i.e., to exercise discernment.

The comments section will be added soon. Until then, feel free to post your comments here.