No, not that paradoxical question. You know the one: "Can an omnipotent being be able to create a boulder than it itself cannot lift?" Though, it does sort of tie into that situation.

If omnipotence as a concept is described as being all-powerful, that everything that could be possible can be done by something with this status, then surely this figure is perfect in every regard. They can do anything and nothing and everything in between. The most common example of this is the Abrahamic God. And it is usually portrayed in a certain manner; three qualities I'd like to discuss below.

Before I begin, I'd like to first say that this isn't a thread about bashing religion, or a higher power, or whatever. This is simply me wondering whether our definition of omnipotence isn't enough.

According to numerous religious texts and books, the one-above-all (effectively) is...
1) Omnipotent (all-powerful)
2) Omniscient (all-knowing)
3) Omni-benevolent (all-good)
(among other things)

This is a trio of qualities that define a good amount of what this all-powerful being could be like. In theory, these ought to describe a perfect "thing," capable of anything that could ever exist. Yet here becomes evident several... concerns.

Firstly, let us refer to a quote that Lex Luthor used in the movie Batman v. Superman:

If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all-good.

Now, what does this quote mean? Surely, if a being such as God is capable of everything, then that means that he can in fact do "all-good." It's one of the "sub-components" of being "all-powerful." Every action can be done; therefore, all moral actions done for moral reasons can be performed.

There's a ton of philosophical questions that rise due to this, though. I won't be referring to them, as this is just my take on the matter.

So, why can't God be all-good? The answer, I think, is fairly simple.

An omni-benevolent being should be "infinitely good." All parts of it equate to an endless sum of goodness. Thus, the being is only capable of performing acts of goodwill; or incapable of performing malevolent actions. But, that would in turn mean that the being is unable to do something. This omni-benevolent being should, by all rules of omni-related adjectives, not be able to perform evil, at least according to its own definition. That itself places a limit on the being, though. It cannot do something without violating an aspect of its complete omnipotence.

If God is all-good, then he cannot be all-powerful, because to be all-powerful, God has to be all-good and all-bad at the same time. But those two all's cancel each other. If this was a math problem, one might think that by them cancelling, you eliminate the problem entirely. You are left with God being all-powerful, neither defined by good or bad.

But that would say that power has no moral bounds. A black hole is powerful. Gravity is powerful. White dwarfs, wormholes; the human capacity to imagine. The impossibilities and possibilities. The hypothetical and real. These are all powerful in some sense. They aren't held back by human moral reasonings because they aren't human at all.

Thus, it would follow that to be all-powerful, one must not be all-good or all-bad. They must completely be devoid of either's presence. Perhaps a self-imposed barrier that prevents the being from knowing a difference between the two. As far as I can tell, that's the only way to ensure that an omnipotent being is as unbiased as it can get.

But, if that is the case, that would make the being not at all omniscient. To be omniscient, a being would have to know everything there is to know. That would mean it would have to know what good is, and what bad is, and how to differentiate between the two. But that creates an informational bias, since now the being has the ability to choose between the two, since it now knows that such two exist.

The obvious refute, here, would be that the being doesn't have to choose. Or, more likely, that the being is so perfect that it doesn't need to choose. It just isn't as it is to choose either.

If it's not in its nature, then it cannot be everything. It cannot be omnipotent because it isn't all-powerful enough to force its nature to be able to choose. Leaving us with wondering if this being is all-knowing if it cannot know how to be all-powerful to the extent that it knows how to be all-good without violating the other two.

So, can such an omnipotent being exist? Being perfect without being perfect?

This brings me back to the paradox mentioned at the beginning. Omnipotence, I figure, cannot be defined in a human manner without putting some humanity into it. A truly omnipotent being is a paradoxical being to everything but itself.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. This is a realm of philosophical thinking that I know can be pretty flawed in some areas. What do you all think?

I love your explanation and I find myself agreeing with your points. One especially:

Omnipotence, I figure, cannot be defined in a human manner without putting some humanity into it.

It would be like explaining color to a blind person. It is an alienable concept, the blind person will not understand it on the same level of ours if at all (I remember reading there's a kind of electronic equipment that helps a blind person distinguish different color purely by their textures, using their sense of touch, but of course it will never be like seeing it for yourself)
Omnipotence is a concept that we'll not truly understand because we are simply handicapped, we're not omnipotent.

Then again, I'm just repeating what you said. Thanks for the think piece.

5467717 Unless you define virtue the way Meno did: "Virtue is to desire beautiful things and to have the power to acquire them." In that case, the only way to be all-good is to be all-powerful.

Jokes aside, I don't see omnipotence and omni-benevolence as being inherently contradictory. Omnipotence is about what someone could do, while omni-benevolence describes what someone does do. An omnipotent being who sits around all day doing nothing is conceivable, as is one who chooses only to do "good" (whatever that means). An omni-benevolent being would not be incapable of doing evil. It would just no longer be omni-benevolent if it did.

5467717 Well, can a non-omnipotent being ever understand what it is to be omnipotent?

I'm not sure if this was your intention, but why can't an all-good being not be all-good if they know evil? How is the knowledge of evil, evil? Is it because we not so omnipotent humans deem it so? How can we say what can't be so when we can't even grasp what we are talking about?

It's always best to think ourselves not as intelligent as we seem. Our whole concept on omnipotence can be heavily flawed, thus hindering our reasoning.

And how can Lex Luthor know what being good is about when he isn't good himself? How can a man deem what a god is? It's like an ant thinking he understands the whole universe over all mankind.

Basically, we will never know with our finite minds. The Abrahamic God is beyond what we can understand.

5467912 Well, that's sort of my point, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

I don't really think that us—the things that came up with omnipotence as a concept—can actually understand it, since we are so limited in being able to even access it.

5467717 You can't be omnipotent if you're omnibenevolent or omniscient. You have to also be omnimalevolent, and unknowing at the same time.

5482339 Precisely. Which is why I think the standard conditions for a truly omnipotent being are flawed at best.

5482568 The word omnipotent can't be used to describe anything we know of. Because to be omnipotent, you also have to have the lack of any and all abilities or powers. The power to have fewer powers than anyone else, that's a power someone who's all powerful can't have. Omnipotent should be used like the word immeasurable. Someone can have immeasurable power because we don't have the scales to measure their power, and that's understandable. On the other hand, the idea of being omnipotent is not so easy to understand, for most humans at least.