Assuming that an omnipotent being could exist, can more than one coexist each other?

  • 1
    Why not ? The principle is: everything that does not violate the laws of logic, physics, etc. may exist. Thus, is the concept of "omnipotent being* meaningful and not-contradictory ? Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 11:32
  • Does this answer your question? Is 'strong' omnipotence required to create another omnipotent being
    – Conifold
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 11:40
  • they wouldn't be omnipotent if there were two. They're 'Omni's' would intersect. Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 13:32
  • @SwamiVishwananda It sounds contradictory to assume an omnipotent being(s) would be restricted by our logic.
    – Cell
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 16:07
  • 2
    It's not even clear whether one omnipotent being can exist, see philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34396/…. You need to provide a useful definition of omnipotence to get a useful answer.
    – tkruse
    Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 14:11

7 Answers 7


Suppose there are two omnipotent beings -- X and Y. If there is more than one omnipotent being, that means neither of those omnipotent beings is less in its power. That is, neither X < Y nor X > Y. Also, we cannot say X ≮ Y or X ≯ Y. That means X = Y. But this also is impossible because X or Y cannot delete or destroy the other. That means neither X nor Y is omnipotent. So a uniqueness is essential in the case of an omnipotent being.

  • What if those 2 omnipotent beings instead of destroying each other, they proceed to exist on their own territory because it's useless to destroy, since they both omnipotent? Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 12:26
  • @Primordiarch: A very relevant question. You know even identical twins are not identical in many cases. When I answer the question regarding omnipotent I must forget it at least for some time. So you can certainly say that I must be stupid to explain omnipotent using mathematical terms...though, I shall explain it for your clear understanding. If there are two omnipotents (may be identical or non-identical), at least their purposes/abilities must be different. Or they wouldn't be doing the same thing at the same time. Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 17:01
  • If so, since there is difference in their abilities, you cannot consider it having unlimited power....or as the case of two computers of the same model/category but having different disabled applications. Or you can say, as we consider the case of elements of two sets, there must be some difference in their powers; that is, they are lacking of some powers (since there is difference in their wills). Or...you can say 'the employer' of these two omnipotents is the real omnipotent which is always unique. Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 17:01
  • Also, 'To proceed to exist on their own territory' can mean both of them are not allowed to invade the other's territory. Actually, the word 'own' itself means that there is something that is not its own. This certainly means neither is omnipotent. Again, if there is any difference in the two omnipotents that implies one of them is a non-omnipotent. So, all routes lead to the uniqueness of the omnipotent. Commented Jul 28, 2020 at 6:10

The motive of this question is an inference like, "If a being is omnipotent, it can do anything; having different arithmetic would be something; so an omnipotent being can have a different arithmetic." But if 1 + 1 = 3 is a logical (enough) truth, then...

In other words, if an omnipotent being can do "anything," then it could be omnipotent without being able to do everything---in fact could be omnipotent even if it couldn't do anything at all, since there is no "logic" to worry about. But really, talk of this sort of omnipotence is empty, then. We need to ask questions about specific ranges and types of powers. It is enough for piety, then, to say that a divine being has unique and maximum powers, but not all powers whatsoever (e.g. a being who has no physical hands cannot grab things with hands, though they might move others to grab things).


It could if you'd restrict the meaning of omnipotence as was done in Fantastic 4 by introducing creatures, who could perform 4th wall breaks and turn to everything, thus not being "normal" The question whether one omnipotent being could kill another, is more of history than possibility. How would a mortal being know of it, if its creation is in a world, what happened after that event, and the "god" who created this world didn't choose to share it with his world, because he did it; deemed it irrelevant or for some other reasons? It would transcend our understanding of life/death and existence. For instance, could one omnipotent being augment or diminish another omnipotent being - make him become a mere mortal like the fall of Lucifer?


It depends on your conception of omnipotent being. If it has the potential to be unique, it will. Does your concept of omnipotent includes such potential?

The traditional problem of omnipotence comes from the concept such potential represents. It's quite common for omnipotent being dreamers to get in conflict when the potential is confronted to logic. Can such power create an object that he can't lift? Can he affirm he's wrong? Can he fail?


I remembering reading a proof that two omnipotent being cannot coexist, but I do not remember where. I think it was Guide for the Perplexed by Rambam, but I could not find it in there. Here is how it goes:

1: Alice and Bob are both omnipotent beings.
2: Alice wants X.
3: Bob wants -X.
4: By the Law of Non-Contradiction, either X or -X.
5: Either Alice or Bob is unable to being about what they wish.
6: This contradicts the first statement, proving by reductio ad absurdum that such a statement can never be true.

Before anyone beings it up, this proof is sound despite quantum physics. We could simply have X can refer to something that cannot being a superposition (e.g. "The speed of light is constant according to all observers"), or add lot of technical language to statements 2 and 3 such that a superposition of X and -X is not allowed.


The short anwser is yes The Long anwser is: Many People failed to understand what omnipotentence or being omnipotent means,for exmple I've seen people call chuck(GOD From supernatural) Omnipotent but he cleary not! A Omnipotent can be beat or limited if and only if they allowed it themself since in theory a true Omnipotent being could set limits for himself/herself which make Omnipotent but not true Omnipotent since he limited himself/herself. Another thing to consired is the story telling,Besides a few religion,Omnipotent beings are only use in stories and if there two of them,writers can't themself from writing something that prevents them from being Omnipotent but in realtiy if there two Omnipotnet creaters then they won't limit it each because for them to be true Omnipotents they have respect and care for each other which is why often see they derpiteced as a family. Anthor things is writers forgot just how power nigh Omnipotece is! So if god was nigh Onipotnece he still so beyond powerful so much that to call a character nigh omnipotence they have their ass kicked or killed by so whoese not Omnipotent is just stupid(Looking at you preacher)

I'm trying to not go over the points everyone else has mention so yeah Long anwser yes


Example: X="omnipotent being" iff ~X="omnipotent being"

By this example X is different from ~X yet thay are logically depend on each other in order to be considered as "omnipotent being". But then being omnipotent is restricted by Logic.

So, as I get it, "omnipotent being" is the substence of any expresion of it that is not limited by it, which means that any attempt to define it (including "omnipotent being", "The One", "Unity", "The balance among different forms", etc.) is, at best, about it, but not it.

Aacctually, all what is written in my answer is about it, but not it.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .