In my opinion,yes. Since you are omnipotent,you are greatest in all qualities and incomperable,which means if there is someone else omniscient (greatest in term of knowledge),you aren't omnipotent. This question makes me confused a lot. Thank whosoever answer this question with proves very much !
Asked
Active
Viewed 116 times
0
-
1Who knows... there are no omniscient beings. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 28 '23 at 13:33
-
2The title and contents of your post need improvement, especially since you state your opinion right away without clarifying what exactly you ask in that title. Your argument can be reduced to "Other's omniscience negates your omnipotence", but you need to present a more thorough explanation of your rationale. – Iñaki Viggers Oct 28 '23 at 13:40
-
1'Omni' doesn't necessarily bestow a hierarchical status. What I mean is, you can have an omnipotent being and an omniscient being simultaneously, whereas you seem to think that this is contradictory. 'Omniscient' means you know everything, but not that you are the only person to know everything. 'Omnipotent' means you are all powerful however, and this necessitates that you are the only omnipotent being, for otherwise, how could you destroy another omnipotent being whose powers included being resilient to all other powers? – Futilitarian Oct 28 '23 at 13:47
-
1We may assume that a being having the "power" to create things knows what he creates. If so, if he creates everything he knows everything. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 28 '23 at 15:19
-
1"Since Buddha has the ability to know everything, he is acknowledged to be omniscient... having the same essential structure as the knowledge of ordinary people" but he was not omnipotent. – Oct 28 '23 at 15:33
-
Thank all of you ! Especially @IñakiViggers , I will remember advice – Chill dude on Earth Oct 28 '23 at 15:49
-
1It would be pretty depressing otherwise. – Scott Rowe Oct 28 '23 at 16:57
2 Answers
1
If there is a largest infinity, it is such as is named V in the theory of proper classes/universes of sets. It is commonly supposed that there are V-many ordinals, V-many cardinals, V-many inaccessibles, V-many measurables, etc. (Those assumptions are not necessary, so far as we know, however; there might be but one uncountable inaccessible in some set-theoretic world; or one measurable K and then only K-many inaccessibles to boot; and so on.) So it is commonly supposed that the maximum number is applicable to a variety of things, not just one (kind/type of) thing; hence two all-knowing beings would not seem impossible.
On the other hand, the SEP article on omnipotence proper reads:
Transfinite cardinals may be used to quantify an amount of energy or force, e.g., ℵ0 joules, or ℵ0 newtons. Or they may be be used to state the cardinal number of a totality of objects, e.g., ℵ2 states of affairs. Thus, one [first] way in which ‘power’ might be interpreted is as a power (or range of powers) to produce an energy or force quantified by a transfinite cardinal. One such option is that ‘infinite power’ means the power to produce a specific transfinite quantity of joules or newtons, e.g., ℵ0. The other option is that ‘infinite power’ means the power to produce any transfinite quantity of joules or newtons, i.e., ℵ0, ℵ1, ℵ2, and so on ad infinitum. A third, more radical option, is that ‘infinite power’ means the power to produce more joules or newtons than can be quantified by any transfinite cardinal number. Such energy or force would appear to qualify as energy or force than which none greater is possible.
... Even so, the notions of more energy or force than can be quantified by any transfinite cardinal, and of more states of affairs than can be quantified by any transfinite cardinal, are mind-boggling. Moreover, arguably, that much energy or force, or the power to bring about that many states of affairs, is impossible. For this reason, with respect to each of the interpretations of ‘infinite power’ on offer, there are doubts about the viability of the corresponding third option. Thus, with respect to each of these alternate interpretations of ‘infinite power’, it is an open question which of the three corresponding options is best. Until greater clarity is attained about this matter, a definition of omnipotence as infinite power is problematic.
And on yet another hand, the doctrine of divine simplicity has it that God's unique power is identical to Its unique knowledge. So in that case, any theoscient (simpliscient) entity is also theopotent (simplipotent), and if there is only one God, then your conclusion would follow.
Kristian Berry
- 13,937
- 2
- 13
- 40
0
Must an omniscient being also be omnipotent?
No. First, omnipotence is a flawed premise (and hence the undoing of much theology) because it leads to inconsistencies. The most widely known inconsistency is the issue of whether an omnipotent being can create a rock heavy enough that not even that being can lift.
Even if omnipotence made sense, an omniscient being might not have what it takes (be it physically, morally, or otherwise) to perform the steps that are known to be requisite for achieving the intended outcome.
Iñaki Viggers
- 460
- 1
- 3
- 7