I think most people who talk about omnipotence aren't clear on what they really mean by it. They dismiss snarky questions about whether God could create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, but there are very real internal consistency issues with the idea that an otherwise anthropomorphic entity is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, why is he? Does he choose how powerful he wants to be, or is his nature and power imposed on him by a reality that transcends him? If he chooses, is the choice itself inescapably imposed on him?
Based on these issues (among others), I've concluded that the only ultimate and irresistible power in reality must be the static truth of reality itself, rather than any dynamic actor. An entity defined by perfect consistency with truth will always be more powerful than entities that deny and rebel against the reality they inhabit, but conflating reality itself with any entity within it to arrive at an entity that transcends all reality and context is a mistake.
In common usage I understand the word "God" to mean both the ultimate truth of reality and the entity who acts consistently with that truth, but I think it's important to recognize the distinction. By following [truth/God], we conform to unalterable reality, integrate ourselves as part of the [church/body of God], and create [harmony/the kingdom of God]. To sin is to deny reality and try to take shortcuts that don't exist, and the ultimate result is always destruction as we dash ourselves against truths we can't change.
I also think all religions refer to the same one and the ultimate power as god
That's an interesting point. How do you distinguish one God from another? How would you differentiate them in order to count or determine if people are referring to the same one? A god is typically not considered to be constrained to a single localized incarnation, so you can't count and differentiate them like we typically do with people. I think we have to differentiate them based on their character, and different religions (and even different individuals within the same religions) certainly have different ideas about the character of their gods.
If each person has their own definition of god, that doesn't mean that a separate god exists for each person any more than having a definition of a unicorn means that unicorns exist. Some definitions are likely to be distorted more than others, and there's no requirement that a definition map to something that really exists. Since many religions include monotheism in their definition of god, it's safe to assume that all of those religions are attempting to describe the same entity.
Interesting article....I'm not sure I agree with it, but it did give me a moments pause and I'm probably going to think about it for a bit.
Great post. :D
I'm glad! Let me know what you come up with.
I will do that. :D