Could you handle unlimited power?

[fisherman_carl]

I was thinking about this today. I think it would be dangerous for anyone who is not perfectly good and loving to have unlimited power. For instance, I don’t trust myself with unlimited power. Imagine having the power to make whatever you want to happen be a reality. If God gave me his power, since I am not perfect I could use that power for selfish ends causing harm to others, limiting their freedom, etc. I think this would be true for any person.

Yet, when I think about Jesus, he became human yet still had access to unlimited power. And perhaps the only way to end up having unlimited power and being perfectly good and loving amongst sinful humans is to end up being nailed to a cross. Having all that power but not using it so as to infringe on the freedom of others. But instead allowing yourself to be mistreated by them and for them. Perhaps that is the only way for perfect goodness to use unlimited power is by being very meek.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, Jesus reveals God’s nature to be humble, which is an amazing concept. When we “play God” we’re just the opposite: controlling, aloof, mean, proud in our superiority. God is kind, patient, long-suffering, forgiving, desiring all to come to Him-the picture of love. That’s true holiness, majesty, godliness. Justice must prevail and ultimately be restored to His universe, however, meaning that at some point He let’s us have our way even if it means we remain opposed to Him, opposed to justice. The wheat and chaff will finally be separated. But meanwhile He’s *drawing *us, patiently, away from evil and towards true justice. That’s the attraction of the cross-that’s grace.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Unlimited power in my hands would be nothing short of a disaster…for I am an idealist at heart…

 

[Solmyr]

As the old, but true saying goes: “Power corrupts”. And therefore “Unlimited power corrupts infinitely”. Fortunately, unlimited power - a synonym for “omnipotence” is just a meaningless utterance. There is no coherent definition of it.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Unlimited power is, well, unlimited. We are all limited. The two don’t match.

I personally would not want that responsibility, nor do I have any illusion that I could handle it. What was the old saying… “if nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve”.

As has already been pointed out, contemplating that scenario does give us insight into Christ’s wonder, and divinity.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[Crusaderbear]

I can’t handle unlimited breadsticks at Olive Garden…

 

[StephieNorthCo]

I can’t handle unlimited breadsticks at Olive Garden…

Hee hee. Ain’t that the truth. Me neither.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[Rhubarb]

I couldn’t handle the Ring of Gyges. I’d try, at first. But it wouldn’t last long.

 

[AKDee]

I’m not even particularly good at handling limited power. I definitely would not be good at unlimited power. I’m glad only God has that.

 

[GEddie]

Wouldn’t that depend on your circuit breakers???

 

[fisherman_carl]

I couldn’t handle the Ring of Gyges. I’d try, at first. But it wouldn’t last long.

A ring that makes you invisible. Plato wondered whether an intelligent person who had no accountability could be moral.

 

[fisherman_carl]

As the old, but true saying goes: “Power corrupts”. And therefore “Unlimited power corrupts infinitely”. Fortunately, unlimited power - a synonym for “omnipotence” is just a meaningless utterance. There is no coherent definition of it.

I think unlimited power means of all the power that exists you have complete control or possess all of it, and there is no one who has power or control over you. So there is nothing limiting you or having power over you. It doesn’t mean it is infinite in the sense of the number infinity. But, rather you possess all power that exists. Such that nothing else in existence could have power over you. This is also why there could not be two beings that had unlimited power because then they could not have unlimited power since they both could have power over the other, making their power limited by each other. And, thus not unlimited.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I guess then, under those circumstances that would mean, that if one of us had unlimited power , then God wouldn’t exist . . .in which case, neither would we.

 

[Solmyr]

I think unlimited power means of all the power that exists you have complete control or possess all of it, and there is no one who has power or control over you.

If nothing else, the laws of logic will always limit you. No one can “be” and “not be” at the same time in the same relationship. No one can have to power to change what already happened (the past in immutable).

Moreover, there are laws of nature, which are absolute. Two examples: “the speed of light in vacuum” and the “absolute zero Kelvin”. The “mass” of a physical object would approach infinity if it could move with the speed of light - and to get there would require infinite energy. The temperature below zero Kelvin would need a “negative” vibration of the molecules Brownian motion. These would be absurdities.

Of course this whole “unlimited power” and “unlimited knowledge” are just absurdities on their own right. The apologists for God wish to establish so-called “infinite attributes”, and they fail to understand that an “infinite attribute” is contradiction in terms. Any attribute “X” also states that the being cannot possess the attribute “not-X”. As such the limitation is always there.

 

[Rhubarb]

A ring that makes you invisible. Plato wondered whether an intelligent person who had no accountability could be moral.

Right. Isn’t that the question at hand regarding handling unlimited power? If I could act without consequences, I don’t think I could handle it. If I were Clark Kent, I’d try to be Superman at first. I think as time went on I would start taking slipping.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If nothing else, the laws of logic will always limit you. No one can “be” and “not be” at the same time in the same relationship. No one can have to power to change what already happened (the past in immutable).

Moreover, there are laws of nature, which are absolute. Two examples: “the speed of light in vacuum” and the “absolute zero Kelvin”. The “mass” of a physical object would approach infinity if it could move with the speed of light - and to get there would require infinite energy. The temperature below zero Kelvin would need a “negative” vibration of the molecules Brownian motion. These would be absurdities.

Of course this whole “unlimited power” and “unlimited knowledge” are just absurdities on their own right. The apologists for God wish to establish so-called “infinite attributes”, and they fail to understand that an “infinite attribute” is contradiction in terms. Any attribute “X” also states that the being cannot possess the attribute “not-X”. As such the limitation is always there.

I’m not too sure what you mean here or what it has to do with unlimited power. One would expect that the creator of the universe is not limited by the universe. All power that exists comes from the Creator.

When we talk about God’s infinite attributes it does not mean infinite in the mathematical sense. But rather not limited by anything else. But of course there are exceptions in logic and usually we exclude logical contradictions from being a possibility period. God can’t create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it for instance. These logical contradictions do not show us anything except that they are nonsensical. God can’t exist and not exist at the same time. That’s not a limit on God but of logic. Any being that does not exist is of course inferior to one who does exist. So I don’t see that as a limitation to God who does exist.

 

[Solmyr]

One would expect that the creator of the universe is not limited by the universe.

Let’s suppose that the absolute zero Kelvin (-273.15 Celsius) is the result of the creator’s decision. Maybe it could have been different if the creator had wanted it to be something else. But once the decision has been made, it is what it is. It cannot be changed into something else. That would violate the law of identity.

But rather not limited by anything else. But of course there are exceptions in logic and usually we exclude logical contradictions from being a possibility period. God can’t create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it for instance.

Only quite recently, and even today it is not a universally accepted concept. There are people who assert that God can create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift, but then God can change his mind and lift it anyway. I think this is nonsense and looks like you agree. But it points to the problem of “how to define unlimited power”.

That’s not a limit on God but of logic.

Nope, it is a problem with the concept of “unlimited” power.

Any being that does not exist is of course inferior to one who does exist.

That was Anselm’s “proof” for God’s existence. Of course today pretty much no one accepts his premise that “existence” is superior to “non-existence”. Existence is not an attribute, which is either there, or not there.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Let’s suppose that the absolute zero Kelvin (-273.15 Celsius) is the result of the creator’s decision. Maybe it could have been different if the creator had wanted it to be something else. But once the decision has been made, it is what it is. It cannot be changed into something else. That would violate the law of identity.

If that were a limit then that would be a limit chosen by God. Therefore it is a limit willed by God and thus not an external limit on him from something else. Thus, he is still unlimited. In addition, the limit is placed on the universe, not on God himself. God himself is not limited by our limitations.

If I make a choice to ride a bike instead of drive a car that is a choice that both frees and limits me. It frees me to ride a bike, but limits me from riding a car. Yet, part of having the freedom of choice is to make the choice in the first place. Someone, who commits himself to a certain course of action does so under his own voluntary will. And, therefore can be said to be making use of his freedom of choice rather than his limitations.

That was Anselm’s “proof” for God’s existence. Of course today pretty much no one accepts his premise that “existence” is superior to “non-existence”. Existence is not an attribute, which is either there, or not there.

I wasn’t making a proof for God, but only stating it is better to exist than not to exist. Are you limited by the fact that you can not exist and exist at the same time? I don’t see how that would limit you in any way.

 

[Solmyr]

I wasn’t making a proof for God, but only stating it is better to exist than not to exist.

“Better” is extremely vague. Better for whom? It is not better for the victims of a homicidal rapist to exist. For the victims it would be much better if such a person would not exist.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Short answer - no, I couldn’t handle unlimited power. I’d be a walking disaster area.

Off topic, but the question of having too much power is why I think the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11 (assuming they will literally exist, and can’t be explained in some symbolic or allegorical form) cannot be merely human.

They’ve got too much power. You couldn’t trust any human being with that much power.

They also seem to know God pretty well, and have similar spiritual power to the devil, to the point where they can fight with him (and lose).

Revelation 11:1-12

"The Two Witnesses -

11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

11 But after the three and a half days the breath** of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on. **

I think they would have to be spiritual beings aka angels. For them that sort of destructiveness would merely be a job, something they’d been told to do, a bit like the “three men” at the Tree of Mamre who told Abraham they were going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

Which they did. End of story. Job done. They could punch the time card and go home.

Most humans wouldn’t act like that.