The Necessity of the Omnipotent

I here intend to argue the necessity of the existence of an all powerful intelligent being as the ruler of all reality.  I will do so beginning in a more practical, absolutist scope and then moving to a less functional one as I feel necessary. Please feel free and encouraged to comment. I would like to make this a dynamic discussion if at all possible (though this seems highly unlikely because I have so few readers at present).

Let me begin, as all logical arguments must, by assuming that logic is true and capable, if used well, of leading even human beings to higher absolute truths.  This statement cannot be proven true or false (though we can make speculations about it) but must ultimately be either accepted or rejected by each individual.  I will return to this later; however, one thing is clear: this assumption must be made for any scope of logical argument to exist.

Based on all human reason and logic, it is most plausible that the universe is made up of one long chain of causality. Whether you believe in physics, physiology, math, computer science, or any of the natural sciences, there is no rational way to escape this conclusion. And why would we want to? Would it be better that the universe operated on arbitrary randomness than on arbitrary rules or patterns? The objective explanation for the sequencing of events, then, is causality.

The only problem with causality is an apparent impossibility it presents: the question of the “cause of causality.” There are two possible solutions to this problem that I will address. One being the assumption that the chain of causality is infinite and encompasses all of reality; the other being the conclusion that an Omnipotent force or being must exist beyond the chain and be its root cause. Many prefer the former of these solutions to the latter. I speculate that the reason for this is that, at first glance, it appears to put a limit on what humanity doesn’t know and allows humanity to answer to itself alone. However, this first impression of the solution is a bit deceiving.

If we assume that the chain of causality we see in the natural universe is infinite, then we have not, in fact, escaped from a belief in the Omnipotent–we have merely replaced our vision of an Omnipotent being with the vision of an Omnipotent set of arbitrary laws: the laws of physics (as the quality of an infinite domain of existence is one of the defining characteristics of the Omnipotent). It is for this reason that it so quickly becomes clear in any sort of an investigation like this that the rational rejection of the Omnipotent is impossible almost by definition.

Suppose then that we nonetheless assume that the chain of causality is this Omnipotent force at the root of the universe. As I mentioned earlier, this seems to give humanity a freedom from authority. After all, if the ultimate truth of reality is just the laws of physics, than who, in their right mind, would answer to it, let alone worship it? This is true, there would be no need for ethics or the rest, but there would also be no possibility for Meaning (in an absolute sense). If all there was to reality was something so arbitrary as physics, then we exist in relative states of being, and to the relativist, sensation alone is virtue. This exudes the possibility of Love or Virtue actually being anything Real at all.

But aside from all the unfortunate consequences of the naturalist idea of the Omnipotent I have described, there is also a logical error that it presents that I see no way around. That is, the exclusion of the possibility of human reason, a possibility which, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is absolutely essential to logical argument and therefore–as I will now add–to what we call “sanity.” For if one were to believe that his or her human logic is the result of arbitrary rules, then there is no reason he or she should believe that logic to hold any weight in discovering the truth, and therefore no reason he or she should believe his or her logic to be the result of arbitrary rules, for it is by that very logic that he or she first reached such a conclusion. This is an example of the infinite recursion I discussed in a different post. Therefore, it cannot be logically concluded that the Omnipotent force behind the universe is a set of arbitrary rules. Rather, the force must itself be intelligent and logical.

Now comes the question: How can the Omnipotent be logical? At this point in the argument people often forget that the Omnipotent being to which I’m referring is beyond causality.  As I explained in the previous paragraph, it is impossible for a rational being to exist as the result of the arbitrary, therefore when one naturally imagines the Omnipotent as being bound to arbitrary causality, he or she cannot imagine It (or Him or Her) being rational.  But because the Omnipotent is Omnipotent, It may exist without cause (just as the naturalist argues cause to exist without cause–in fact it is impossible to, in the human imagination, conceptualize a reality where nothing exists without cause).  Therefore, by definition, the Omnipotent may be, and must be, a Rational Being.