Is it logical to say that an omnipotent (all-powerful) being expends some sort of resource when exercising its power?

1. If yes, then is there a finite amount to this resource or a limit of expense?
   1. If yes, then this would mean that this being is not omnipotent.
   2. If no, then this being would not suffer consequences of a lack of or reduction in resources.
2. If no, then this being would not be omnipotent on account of lacking the resources to be powerful.

The conclusion I reach seems to be no, but I'd like to run it by here to see what other people think.


The idea is that an omnipotent being may for example use the resource of energy when carrying out actions. If this being is omnipotent, then the amount and availability of this resource (energy) must be infinite, because if it is not, then this being is not omnipotent. If this being is omnipotent (due to the amount and availability of its resources being infinite) expends a resource (energy) on its actions, then it would not require something (rest) as a result of an expense or lack of a resource (energy).


Keep in mind that my point is on the necessity of something (rest), not the decision to do something (rest).

Obviously if a being requires a resource to be powerful, the being itself is not omnipotent because it can't be powerful in its own strength. So calling it omnipotent wouldn't really make sense at all.

The answers you have given are for a completely different question, and I can't even guess what that question would be. I don't think it would have anything to do with omnipotence though.

First of all, what you wrote is really obscure and not too clear, so I'm just going to focus on your initial problem:

"Is an omnipotent being affected by resources?"
No, if it were, it would be bound to the availability of the resource.
Besides, an omnipotent being could just create more of the resource, nullifying the need for it anyway.

I'll just respond to both of you at once, because you both helped me reach what seems to be a more logical conclusion. (Hopefully I can get your opinions on this too)

The question itself is nonsense and makes the assumption that an omnipotent being requires something to exercise its power, thus making it not omnipotent, even if the resource is unlimited.
So, by definition, a being is not omnipotent if it relies on a resource (whether infinite or finite).

As such, to be classified as omnipotent, a being would have to have the ability to create something from nothing.
The question about an omnipotent being being affected by the expense of resources is thus nonsense because if a being requires any sort of resource as an exertion of its power, then it is by definition, not omnipotent.

Does these seem more logical?

Yes, that is the long way of saying it.

More simply put: omnipotent beings do not need resources because they are omnipotent.

Thank you for helping Fish.
This can be closed down now.