The Bounds of Omnipotence

I believe my philosophy of religon teacher thought I was nuts at the end of the semester. Oh well. Hehe. Please tell me what you think of my essay.
         
          One of the words harbored in on when one seeks to single out one of the many defining concepts of God is that he is omnipotent. It should therefore seem likely that He, who is omnipotent, should be able to create a computer program which can beat Him at a chess game. Or should He? If God could create such a program that is superior to Himself, would that mean that he is in fact inferior and therefore not omnipotent? If He were not able to create a computer program that could beat him at a chess game however, wouldn’t it still imply that he is not omnipotent?
          According to Aquinas, such a paradox is unsolvable. Firstly, such a proposition would contradict the omnipotence of God for He can only do all that is possible. A thing is defined as possible if it has no incompatible aspects. Take for instance the concept of a round square. A thing can not be both square and round. It can have certain qualities of the other as in perhaps a square with rounded edges. But according to modern day logic it has to be either one thing or the other - not both.
          Although the paradox suggests that either way, God is not omnipotent, Aquinas says otherwise. One can gather from his article on “The Omnipotence of God” that though there is clearly something that God can not do, he is still omnipotent. He is still perceived to be omnipotent because He is able to do all the things that are in his nature and range of possible things to do.
          Aquinas’ theory suits his needs but others such as myself pose the common logic that either something can be done or it can’t. With that in mind, a being is omnipotent or it isn’t. Aquinas is consistent in his theory that God is omnipotent but from my standpoint, he doesn’t make much sense. The dilemma of whether God can or cannot create a computer program that can beat Him at a chess game still remains.
          Suppose God really is not able to create a program that can beat Him at chess. If that is the case, then He is not omnipotent. I however am well aware that I can devise problems which I am unable to solve. Does this make me superior to God because I can create something that eludes my wit? Or perhaps it shows that I am not omnipotent simply because I am unable to solve the problem that I have created. Well according to Aquinas, I should be omnipotent because I can only do the things that are in my scope of things that are possible for me. It is therefore okay for me to not be able to solve my problem. I am still omnipotent.
          It’s quite obvious that Aquinas’ response is rather unsound and though I’m clearly in sheer opposition with the man, I can offer no better response but rather a different one that may well sound just as bizarre. From the human perspective, “The Paradox of the Software” does seem to prove that there can not be an omnipotent God. If God can not create a computer program which can beat Him at a game of chess, He is not omnipotent. If He can create a computer program which can beat Him at a game of chess, then He is not omnipotent because He can be beat. I propose however that perhaps there is another option, or many more for that matter, besides “can” and “can not”. If God is such a Supreme Being, then surely it is possible that he may not be bound within the mortal constraints of “cans” and “can nots” as we are. Take for instance the color “sequr”, which may actually exist. It is a color unknown to man. It is not at all like the shades of greens, blues, oranges, reds, and yellows that we now know of but something completely different therefore currently beyond our scope of perception.
          For a moment, consider the previously mentioned concept of the impossible round square. In Aquinas’ opinion, such a concept may elude not only our scope of perception but God’s as well. He says in his article, “For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.” Not only does he say that a contradictory object such as a round square in inconceivable to humans, rather, he goes so far as to say that “no intellect, can possibly conceive such a thing”. Perhaps men can be asses and perhaps squares can be round. Who are imperfect beings, who are not omniscient, such as ourselves, to ascertain with such conclusiveness what is or isn’t possible? It may not be within our spectrum of “possible” knowledge to be able to conceive a “possible” thing, like a round square, which may actually be “possible”.
          We are like a mass of teetering little children who think we have all the answers or all the materials needed to find the answers when in actuality, it is likely, given our tender years compared with the timelessness of the Divine Existence, that we don’t. So perhaps God is omnipotent even after having been given the seemingly obvious conclusion that “The Paradox of the Software” draws. He may be omnipotent in such a way that defies and outright slaughters our grounds of comprehension. Conversely, perhaps God really is not omnipotent. The paradox may or may not prove this point. If answers are really limited to “can” and “can not” on both human and ultimate being level, then God is not omnipotent. “The Paradox of the Software” poses not only an unsolvable dilemma, but it also poses one that may be too far beyond our power to ever truly understand.