 | The Omnipotence Paradox"Can an all-powerful being create something that is greater than itself?" is the central question of the omnipotence paradox.If a being is defined as being omnipotent, can it create a stone that is too heavy for it to lift or a future that it cannot control? If it can, then it is not omnipotent thereby violating our premise that the being is all-powerful; if it cannot, then it is again not omnipotent. This question is, of course, unanswerable, but its implications are still important. In American jurisprudence, the supreme rule of law rests in the Constitution. We consider the document to be omnipotent.
"Can a constitutional amending clause amend itself -- especially, can it do so when it is the only authority for the amendment, when it is the supreme rule of change in that legal system, when the new version of the clause would be inconsistent with the original, when the amendment would diminish the amending power, and when the amendment purports to be irrevocable? If we regard constitutional amending clauses as legally omnipotent, on the evidence that they are the supreme rules of change in their respective systems, then we have replicated the theological version of the paradox of omnipotence. If we do not regard amending clauses as legally omnipotent, then some irrevocable limitation on their power must exist; for if all limitations on it were revocable, some power would be legally omnipotent. There is no contradiction in assuming that such irrevocable limitations exist; there is only the difficulty of turning to legal history and finding them. If we insist they are there even though we cannot find them, then no legal power is omnipotent. That is a logically permissible solution. If we think those irrevocable limitations are not there, or if we suppose they are not for the purposes of inquiry, then we thereby posit at least one omnipotent legal power. If we do so, we have clearly lost the right to reject the assumption of omnipotence" (Suber 1990). |