The various conflicts that afflict the concept of omnipotence shouldn’t be at all surprising. Philosophers and theologians did not start with an empirical observation that God was omnipotent and then proceed to come to terms with how omnipotence should be understood in relation to God’s other attributes. Such a context, if it existed, would perhaps allow us to be more sympathetic to the shifting sand under their feet.
In reality they have began with the religious dogma that God is omnipotent, inferred in part from the religious dogma of God’s role as absolute creator, and then proceeded to redefine and redefine and then redefine once more (although these are usually described as “refinements,” not redefinitions). This path is followed in an effort to harmonize one religious dogma with a series of other religious dogmas which are also redefined until somewhere, someone hopefully arrives at a set of definitions that don’t contradict each other or anything we know about the world, but is still meaningful in a religious context. No one has quite succeeded yet, but that’s not for want of trying.
Arguably, the original conception of omnipotence wasn’t really coherent anyway — but as more and more of it is removed in order to make it safe for logic and for God’s other alleged attributes, we arrive at a position where there seems little point in continuing to use the term at all. Is God all-powerful or just very powerful? The “refined” definition of all-powerful seems to be barely distinguishable from very powerful. The term all-powerful cannot be abandoned for religious reasons, but the concept has been all but abandoned in the details.
This may be one reason why some philosophers and theologians have come to favor process theism over philosophical theism. According to process theism, God is incapable of exerting coercive power over creation. Instead, God can at most exert persuasive power. God cannot impose divine will on people, but God can try to persuade people about what should be done — and then people will either agree or disregard God’s advice. This limitation to persuasion includes an inability to perform miracles — just as God cannot enforce divine will on humans, it is also impossible for God to violate the laws of nature.
Classical theists have argued that this renders God less worthy of worship because, presumably, being worthy of worship requires an ability to enforce one’s will against all possible opposition. Process theists, however, state that God’s inability to impose divine will on the world is actually a moral advantage, rendering God more respectable and more impressive. Thus, omnipotence is explicitly sacrificed in order to better secure other attributes regarded as ultimately more important.
Is the notion of God as omnipotent coherent and meaningful? Perhaps, but there is no single or obvious way to understand what “omnipotence” means, and there are very good reasons to think that whatever definition is given, it will either contradict with other characteristics or it will be reduced to meaninglessness. Thus, the attribute of omnipotence needs to be treated with some skepticism and care.
