Nathaniel Branden’s Case against Theism Examined:
God and Omnipotence (3)
by James Kiefer
Unpublished dot-matrix printout dated June 28, 1980 *

[Editor’s notes are in blue.]
Introduction

I promised at the beginning of this paper [“Objectivism and Theism”] that, after presenting the positive case for theism on Objectivist grounds, I would examine Dr. [Nathaniel] Branden’s arguments and state where, in my judgement, he goes astray. To this task I now turn.

A Historical Digression on Omnipotence

At this point, Dr. Branden may say:

If you are prepared to grant that God cannot perform contradictions, well and good. But my point is that theists have believed for centuries that God can do anything, including the contradictory. They have smoothed over all difficulties, answered all charges of self-contradiction, silenced all questioners, and in general struck down Reason whenever she dared to raise her head, simply by appeals to the unsearchable wisdom and power of God. Your concession that contradictions are impossible even for God saves you personally from the charge of blatant irrationality (on this particular point), but it places you outside the whole theist tradition.

To this I reply, in the first place, that the nature of the theist tradition is irrelevant to the present argument. If I am here putting forward a rational and consistent position and in the process showing Dr. Branden’s to be irrational and inconsistent, then his plain duty is to abandon his in favor of mine without regard to religious traditions. If I am the first consistent theist in history, let him become the second!

But although the historical question is not central, it may nonetheless be worth looking at. When theists, past and present, have called God omnipotent, what have they meant by it?

The question is not trivially answerable, for language like “God can do all things!” is equally appropriate from those who exclude contradictions, those who do not, and those who have never thought about the matter one way or the other.

We begin with the dictionary. If we assume that people use words with their dictionary meanings unless they specify other meanings, shall we conclude that those who call God almighty or omnipotent mean that he can perform contradictions?

Funk and Wagnall’s
Omnipotent: not limited in authority or power.
Almighty: able to do all things.

American Heritage
Omnipotent: having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Oxford Illustrated
Omnipotence: infinite power; great influence.

Oxford English Dictionary
Almighty: infinite in power.
All: the greatest possible.

Random House (unabridged):
All: (3) the greatest possible.
All-Powerful: having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority.
Omnipotent: (1) almighty, or infinite power, as God or a deity; (2) having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Almighty: (1) having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God or a deity; (2) having very great power, influence, etc., overpowering.
Infinite: immeasurably great; (2) indefinitely or exceedingly innumerable; inexhaustible.

Webster’s Third (Merriam-Webster, unabridged)
Omnipotent: (1) almighty (1a).
Almighty: (1a) having absolute power over all.
Absolute: (3) marked by freedom from restraint or control by any governing or commanding agent or instrumentality: as (d) possessing or marked by absolute power: in sole control [a ship captain absolute on the high seas].

Webster’s Second (Merriam-Webster, unabridged)
Omnipotent: (1a) Almighty (1a); (1b) able in every respect and for every work; unlimited or indefinitely great, in power, ability, or authority; all-powerful; almighty.
Almighty: (1a) Originally all-ruling; having power over all; — applied to God and rendering the Greek pantokrator in Rev. 1:8 and in the Apostle’ and Nicene Creeds; (1b) unlimited in might; omnipotent; all-powerful; irresistible; applied to God, man, and things

The reader will observe that it would not be easy to prove from these definitions that English-speakers us the words “omnipotent” and “almighty” to denote being capable of performing contradictions.

The reference to pantokrator gives us a clue to the history of the concept. The English word “Almighty” and (as far as I can tell) the Latin “omnipotens” were both coined as equivalents for the Greek word, which in turn was introduced into Jewish and Christian circles as a translation for the Hebrew “Shaddai,” used as a name of God.

The Greek pantokrator, or “All-Ruler,” from pan, meaning “all,” as in “Pan-American,” and krat, meaning “to rule,” as in “aristocrat,” might mean “having power to do all things.” On the other hand, it might mean “having power over all things,” which is not quite the same, or “possessing all things in excellence.” (See under krateo in Liddell and Scott, or any other large dictionary of Classical Greek.) It does not, simply by itself, justify us in concluding that the user thinks God capable of performing contradictions.

The origins of the word “Shaddai” are doubtful. Some linguists trace it to “dai,” meaning “enough,” and suppose it to mean the sufficient one, either in the sense of one who lacks nothing or in the sense of a generous provider for mankind. Other linguists connect it with a primitive root word for the female breast, which developed into a word for lady, mistress of the house, which then developed a masculine counterpart meaning lord or master, but still with overtones of nourishment, so that “Shaddai” is taken to mean the lord, the master, the ruler, but also the father, the head of the family, the provider, the nourisher, the sustainer, the giver of life. Still other linguists connect it with a word for “mountain,” and so with the idea of a god of the mountains, a god who inhabits the mountains, or a god who reminds us of a mountain, who is firm, solid, strong, dependable, or a god who is awe-inspiring, as the sight of a mountain is awe-inspiring for many people.

A reader interested in how the Jewish and Christian scriptures refer to the power of God might begin by reading in context some of the passages indicated below, in a list intended to be representative, rather than complete:

Ge 17:1  I am the Almighty (Shaddai)
Re 1:8  I am the Almighty (pantokrator)

Ps 107:23-31  ... his wonders in the deep ....
Ps 106:8-9  .... made his mighty power to be known ...
1 Sa 2:6  The Lord killeth and giveth life.
Na 1:4-5  The mountains quake before him.
Ps 29  The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.
Ps 18  The earth shook and trembled.
1 Chr 29: 11-12  Thine, O Lord, is the greatness....
Ps 104:7  ... at thy rebuke they fled....

Dt 32:39  ... out of my hand....
2 Chr 20:6  none is able to withstand thee
Is 14:27  his hand is stretched out, who shall turn it back?
2 Chr 14:11  ... help, whether with many....
Da 4:34-35  ... everlasting dominion ... none can stay his hand....

Ps 33:6-9  by the word of the Lord were the heavens made
Jb 9:7-9, 10, 12  who commandeth the sun and it riseth not....
Jb 23:13  what he wills, he does

Is 50:2  Is my hand shortened?
Nu 11:23  Is the Lord’s hand waxed short?
Is 59:1  The Lord’s hand is not shortened.

Ge 18:14  is anything too hard for the Lord?
Jb 42:2  ... thou canst do everything....
Jr 32:17, 27  There is nothing too hard for thee.

Mt 19:26  with God all things are possible
Mk 10:27  with God all things are possible
Lk 18:27  things impossible with men are possible with God
Lk 1:37  God’s promises can never fail. [01]

On the other side of the fence, we find the Christian scriptures asserting that “God cannot....” Twice (Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18) we are told that he cannot lie, and once (2 Timothy 2:13) we are told that he cannot contradict himself. [02]

It seems most unlikely to me that, in any of these passages, the writers are at all concerned with Dr. Branden’s historical question, or provide evidence of their beliefs on the subject. People who believe in God and think of him in terms of love and awe are likely to brush aside questions like “Can God tie a knot that he cannot untie?” as silly and pointless, and it is probably impossible to determine from their language about him how they would answer such a question if they were asked it and could be persuaded to take it seriously.

On the other hand, when theists do face explicitly the question or whether God can bring about contradictions, the standard answer is a flat negative.

Aristotle distinguishes relative and absolute impossibility, the former that which cannot be done by a given agent because of the limitations of that agent, the latter that which cannot be done at all. [03] Aquinas refers to this passage and identifies the absolutely impossible with the contradictory. He defines omnipotence as the ability to do everything that is absolutely possible (i.e., non-contradictory). He comments on the text, “With God no thing shall be impossible,” by saying, “A contradiction in terms cannot be a thing, for no mind can conceive it.” [04] Elsewhere he gives the example of creating a thing with the property of not having been created as an example of something God cannot do. [05]

A century before Aquinas, St. Anselm wrote his Proslogion, chapter 7 of which is headed, “How He (God) is omnipotent, although there are many things of which he is not capable.”

The point about contradiction is often worded in terms of altering the past. Aristotle approvingly quotes the poet Agathon as saying:

For this alone is lacking e’en to God
To make undone the things that once are done. [06]

Eight centuries before Aquinas, St. Augustine wrote:

Whoever says, “If God is almighty, let Him make what has been done to be not-done,” does not realize that he is saying, “If God is almighty, let Him make true things to be true and false.” [07]

St. Jerome, his contemporary, wrote:

Though God can do everything, He cannot make the unspoilt from the spoilt. [08]

Which Aquinas interprets as:

God can completely restore the damaged, but cannot alter the fact that it was once damaged. [09]

Still earlier, between AD 150 and AD250, we find Iranaeus, Tertullian, and Origen respectively writing as follows:

“Could not God have displayed man perfect from the beginning?” If anyone asks this, he must be told that God is absolute and eternal, and in respect of himself all things are within his power. But contingent things have their beginning of being in the course of time, and for this reason they must needs fall short of their maker’s perfection; for things which have recently come to birth cannot be eternal; and not being eternal, they fall short of perfection for that very reason. And being newly created they are therefore childish, immature, and not yet fully trained for an adult way of life. [10]

These heretics say that nature cannot be changed ... because “a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit; and can one reap figs from thorns or grapes from thistles?” (Matt 8:17) ... But the sayings of Scripture will not prove inconsistent. A bad tree will not yield good fruit without grafting, and a good tree will give bad fruit if not tended. [11]

We know that in saying “everything is possible to God,” (Matt 19:26) “everything” is understood as not extending to the impossible and the inconceivable.... But where Celsus lays it down that ”God does not will things unnatural” we make a distinction. If “evil” is equated with “unnatural” we agree ... on the other hand ... what God does is not unnatural, even if it be surprising, or surprising to some people. [12]

Jewish theologians also concur. Rabbi Moses Maimonides says:

... [An] agens [agent] is not deficient in power, if it is unable to perform what is intrinsically impossible. Thus we, Monotheists, do not consider it a defect in God that He does not combine two opposites in one object, nor do we test His omnipotence by the accomplishment of any similar impossibility. [13]

I regret that my limited knowledge does not permit me to produce suitable quotations from Moslem sources.

In summary, then, it is Dr. Branden who has given to the word omnipotence a private meaning of his own, and when he points out that God cannot be omnipotent in his special sense, theists from all centuries reply in chorus: “We never thought Him omnipotent in your sense. What else is new?”


References
[Editor’s notes are in blue.]

* The title refers to Nathaniel Branden’s lecture “The Concept of God,” from his lecture series “The Basic Principles of Objectivism.” That lecture is fully transcribed in his book The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (Gilbert, Ariz.: Cobden Press, 2009), chapter 4. Partial and perhaps complete audios seem to be available throughout the Internet, especially here. See also R.A. Childs, “The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism,” Note 19.

[01] For Luke 1:37 I have followed the New English Bible and some other translations. The King James and some other translations have, “with God nothing shall be impossible.” After looking at the Greek, I side with the NEBs, but those who prefer the King James wording can always fall back on Matthew and Mark.

[02] The King James has “cannot deny himself.” The Greek has arneomai, which I take to mean repudiate himself, go against himself, say against himself, or the like — in short, contradict himself. But however one deals with “contradict,” the “cannot” is unambiguous.

[03] Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1019.

[04] Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Part 1, Question 25, Articles 3 and 4

[05] Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Part 1, Question 7, Article 3 [Reply to Objection 1].

[06] Aristotle, Nichomachaean Ethics, 1139.

[07] St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 25:5. [Correction: The passage occurs in Book 26, not Book 25.]

[08] St. Jerome, Epistle 24 (To Eustochius). [James seems to be in error here. Epistle 24 is to Marcella, and contains no passage similar to the one James supplies. Epistle 22 is to Eustochius, and in paragraph 5 is found this sentence: “I will say it boldly, though God can do all things, He cannot raise up a virgin once she has fallen.”]

[09] Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Part 1, Question 25, Article 4.

[10] St. Iranaeus (AD 180?), Adversus Haereses, 4:38:1; apud Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (Oxford Paperbacks, 1969), p. 67. [In the 1956 Geoffrey Cumberlege/Oxford University Press 1956 hardback edition, the passage appears on pp. 92-93. Wikipedia gives St. Iranaeus’s dates as AD 130–202.]

[11] Tertullian (AD 240?), De Anima, 21; apud H. Bettenson, op. cit., p. 110. [Page 151 in the 1956 hardback edition. Wikipedia gives Tertullian’s dates as AD 155–240. The scriptural reference should be Matthew 7:17. James often quotes Scripture from memory; in this case, “Homer nods.”]

[12] Origen (AD 240?), Contra Celsum, 5:23; apud H. Bettenson, op. cit. p. 186. [Pages 255–56 in the 1956 hardback edition. Wikipedia gives Origen’s dates as AD c.184–c.253.]

[13] Moses Maimonides, or Moses ben Maimon (AD 1180?), The Guide for the Perplexed, chapter 75, argument 1. [Translated from the original Arabic text by M. Friedländer, PH.D (New York: Dover Books, 1956 (2nd ed.)); page 139. Wikipedia gives Maimonides’ dates as 1138–1204.]

HomeNNNNKiefer main pageNNNNNotes Table of Contents

E-mail Thornwalker at neff@thornwalker.com.

Texts throughout this section are copyright 2008 by James E. Kiefer, printed by permission of his estate.
Formatting, transcription, and other material (where noted) are copyright © 2001–2020 Ronald N. Neff, d/b/a Thornwalker.com

Thornwalker.com is hosted by pair Networks.