Omnipotence of the necessary being

The necessary being must be attributed with some power, as it is responsible for the creation of contingent beings. However, it is not merely powerful in a limited sense; rather, it is omnipotent. The proof is as follows:

1. The potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless.
2. If the potential for the emergence of any possible essence is beginningless, then there must be a beginningless being that can bring any possible essence into existence.
3. Therefore, the necessary being can bring any possible essence into existence, as it is the only beginningless being.

This syllogism is valid. To explain the first premise, imagine a particular contingent being comes into existence, such as a ball. If the ball comes into existence, then this means that it was always possible for the ball to come into existence. One might object by suggesting that the ball’s existence was initially impossible but then some change occurred, making its existence possible. The response to this is that if such a change was itself possible, then the ball’s existence was never truly impossible to begin with. Therefore, anything that could come into existence must have always had the potential to come into existence.

As for the second premise, what this means is that if the potential for contingent beings to come into existence is beginningless, then there must be at least one beginningless being in existence that has the capability to actualize these potentials. As demonstrated previously, there cannot be more than one necessary being in existence, and the necessary being is the only beginningless being. Therefore, the necessary being is able to bring any contingent being into existence. Thus, the necessary being is omnipotent since it can actualize any possibility.

The possibility of miracles

The possibility of miracles can be illustrated with an analogy of a video game designer. A video game designer creates the rules and systems of the game but also has the ability to override those rules. For example, the designer can make a character walk through walls or fly, even if the game normally does not allow it. Similarly, the necessary being is omnipotent and is responsible for the creation of the universe and its natural laws, so he is not bound by them and can act beyond them. It is possible then for the necessary being to sustain an individual without food or drink, to resurrect those who have passed away, to split the seas, to enable a person to walk on water, to turn a staff into a snake, and so on.

Science and miracles

From a scientific standpoint, miracles are generally regarded with skepticism because science is based on observations and explains phenomena through what can be empirically tested and verified. Since miracles are defined as events that appear to violate or suspend natural laws, they fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Consider a character in a video game who claims to be able to walk on water. Others in the video game then mock the claimant and state that people cannot walk on water. The claimant then walks on water to everyone’s amazement.

If this occurred in reality, a scientist would seek to explain this phenomena through natural means. Other animals are able to walk on water due to their anatomical makeup, so perhaps a person who walks on water has an anatomical reason for why he is able to walk on water. If this person’s anatomy does not provide an explanation, then perhaps this person is utilizing technology that allows him to walk on water. If all natural explanations are exhausted, why then should a person deny the miracle? Undoubtedly, miracles should be treated with skepticism, but they should not be regarded as illogical and impossible. Indeed, science deals with how the world usually operates, but it is an assumption that the world will continue to operate the way it usually does. The necessary being is able to change how the world operates, and this allows for the possibility of miracles.

Omnipotence paradox

An omnipotence paradox is a type of paradox often utilized in order to test or challenge the coherence of the concept of omnipotence by presenting scenarios that demonstrate that the concept apparently leads to logical contradictions. The most popular example of an omnipotence paradox is the question, "Can God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" [1] It would appear that there are only two possible answers:

• If yes, then God would not be omnipotent because he lacks the power to lift the stone.
• If no, then God would not be omnipotent because he cannot create such a stone.

The first answer is incorrect because God is omnipotent, so there is no stone that he cannot lift. The second answer is closer to the truth but contains a non sequitur; it does not follow that God is not omnipotent because he cannot create such a stone. The correct answer to the question is that it is impossible for God to create such a stone, not due to any weakness or deficiency in his power, but because the task of creating such a stone is contradictory, and contradictions are inherently impossible [2]. God can create and lift all stones because he is omnipotent, so to ask if God can create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it is no different than asking if God can create a contradiction. Further examples of omnipotence paradoxes include questions such as whether God can create a married bachelor or a square circle.

Omnipotence paradoxes all share a deeper and more fundamental question: can an omnipotent being create a contradiction? The response is that omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is possible, no matter how strange. As for logical impossibilities, they are unrelated to the notion of power; therefore, neither a powerless nor an omnipotent being can bring about a contradiction. To affirm that God can create contradictions is a self-defeating position, as it would entail that contradictions are possible, but if contradictions are possible, then one could say that contradictions are possible and impossible, which is an assertion that collapses into contradiction itself. Furthermore, if contradictions were possible, one could say that God can create contradictions but also does not have the ability to create contradictions. Thus, contradictions cannot be actualized, and this in no way demonstrates any deficiency in God's power.

To give an example, consider an artist who is capable of drawing anything. A challenger challenges the artist to draw a variety of polygons and then, seeking to be clever, challenges the artist to draw a polygon with a curve. The artist responds that polygons, by definition, do not have curves. The challenger then walks out in a false sense of victory, claiming that the artist was unable to complete the task. The artist was not unable to complete the task due to a lack of skill but due to the fact that the task was inherently contradictory and meaningless.

The difference between miracles and logical impossibilities

Miracles are breaks in the natural order and are logically possible because the necessary being is not bound by natural laws. As for logical impossibilities, they are impossible because they violate the laws of logic. Natural laws are essentially the regular patterns that the world operates on, as set by the necessary being. On the other hand, the laws of logic are not created; it is not that the necessary being decided what the laws of logic would be. If the laws of logic were created, then prior to their creation, absurdities were possible, such as contradictions. As mentioned previously, to hold such a position would be self-defeating. The laws of logic are simply necessary truths that do not exist independently of the mind; they are abstract principles that serve as tools for rational beings to discern and evaluate proper reasoning [3]. For example, it is not that God created the law of non-contradiction by deciding that it is impossible for a thing to be and also not be simultaneously, but this law of logic is a truth that simply holds true and is understood by rational beings.

To distinguish a miracle from a logical impossibility, one must determine whether the concept in question involves a contradiction. A decent analogy is a video game; can a video game designer make a character in a game walk on water, fly without wings, or enter a fire without being harmed? The answer is yes because the video game designer can change the rules and laws of the game, and this would not result in contradictions. Similarly, the necessary being can bring about these occurrences in reality, even though they are strange, but they are, nevertheless, possible. If they occurred in reality, then they would be miracles that demonstrate a change in scientific laws, and these laws are nothing more than how God makes the world operate. However, can a video game designer create a square circle, a married bachelor, or a beardless character that has a beard? The answer is no because these tasks are contradictory. Similarly, it is impossible for the necessary being to create such contradictions in reality because they violate logical laws. The necessary being can fulfill any task, no matter how strange, as long as the task is not contradictory.

Can God create another God?

The notion that God could create another God is logically incoherent, as it violates the definition of what it means to be God. Of course, the answer may change depending on one’s definition of a deity, but the mainstream and classical understanding is that God is uncreated and necessary in existence. That which is uncreated and necessary in existence cannot be created because it already exists. Therefore, it is impossible for God to create another God.

Burhān at-Tamānuʿ (proof of prevention): only one omnipotent being can exist and the second proof of monotheism

It has already been demonstrated that the necessary being is omnipotent, and so at least one omnipotent being exists. It can also be proven that only one being can possess omnipotence. If two or more beings possessed this ṣifah (attribute), then this would lead to contradictions, which means it is impossible for the necessary being to create another omnipotent being. The proof is as follows:

1. If two beings are omnipotent, then they are able to disagree with one another.
2. Therefore, it is possible that one of them wills for a particular entity to come into existence, and the other wills that this particular entity does not come into existence.
3. If such a scenario occurred, both of them cannot be victorious because this would be contradictory.
4. If neither of them are victorious, then neither of them are omnipotent, but this is impossible because it has been proven that at least one omnipotent being exists.
5. Therefore, only one of them can be victorious and omnipotent.

This syllogism is valid. The first premise is true because omnipotent beings would be able to disagree with another. If two beings are compelled to agree and could not disagree with each other, then neither of them are omnipotent. It then logically follows that if it is possible for them to disagree, then it is possible that one of them wills for a particular entity to come into existence, while another wills that this entity does not come into existence. As for the third premise, they cannot both achieve their objective because a being cannot exist and also not exist simultaneously. As for the fourth premise, if neither of them achieved their objective, then neither of them are omnipotent. For example, if one willed for a watermelon to come into existence, and the other willed to prevent this, but only half of the watermelon came into existence, then both of them lack power. In fact, this would mean that these two beings are contingent since their power is restricted by another. However, it is impossible that they both lose since it has already been demonstrated that at least one omnipotent being exists. Therefore, only one of them can be victorious, so only one being can be omnipotent.

The only objection one could raise against this argument is that perhaps it is possible that these two beings agree not due to compulsion but due to choice. It is clear that if they lack the power to disagree, then they are not omnipotent, but what if they always agreed willingly? The problem with this objection is that even if two beings always willingly agreed with each other for eternity and did not clash, it is possible that they could disagree. Since it is possible that they could disagree, then only one of them can be omnipotent. No actual clash must occur in order for this argument to hold. The fact that the necessary being is the only omnipotent being is a proof for monotheism. The necessary being is Al-Qādir (the Omnipotent).

[1] It would be incorrect to believe that God lifts stones in the same manner of humans and other embodied beings because God is immaterial. Nevertheless, the manner in which God would lift a stone is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
[2] One should say that it is impossible for God to do such instead of saying He cannot do such. The reason for this is that the word 'cannot' implies weakness.
[3] Necessary truths do not contradict the fact that there can only be one necessary being in existence because truths or facts are abstract. For instance, it is eternally true that 1=1. This truth does not exist extra-mentally, meaning outside of minds. However, if truths or other abstract things, such as concepts or ideas, can only exist in minds, and such abstract notions are eternal, then they must have eternally existed in an eternal mind. This is another proof that a necessary being exists because such abstract notions can be found in the knowledge of the necessary being.