- 320
- 234
Disclaimer: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE TIER SYSTEM BE CHANGED THIS IS MERELY A DISCUSSION.
The wiki's current definition of Omnipotence is as follows:
Omnipotence, in its most common composition, is defined as the ability do to all things. It is usually accompanied by other attributes – Omnipresence and Omniscience.
In more analytic terms, Omnipotence might be formulated as "X is Omnipotent iff, should X will a certain state-of-affairs Y, Y cannot possibly fail to be obtained." From this definition, there obviously follow a host of potential difficulties in maintaining the coherence of the concept. The classical omnipotence paradox, of note, rears its head: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that they can't lift it?"
The other angle of Omnipotence, set apart from the "functional" aspect described above, is the angle of maximal power; of being fundamentally unable to be surpassed, on pain of logical contradiction. Although obviously related to the above formulation of the concept, this aspect can be seen as dealing with the very grounding of it. That is to say: It is desirable to provide a mechanism that logically explains and justifies claims of boundless power. This page seeks to provide an overview of both facets of Omnipotence, as well as a guide for how the concept is used in this community.
Omnipotence, in its most common composition, is defined as the ability do to all things. It is usually accompanied by other attributes – Omnipresence and Omniscience.
In more analytic terms, Omnipotence might be formulated as "X is Omnipotent iff, should X will a certain state-of-affairs Y, Y cannot possibly fail to be obtained." From this definition, there obviously follow a host of potential difficulties in maintaining the coherence of the concept. The classical omnipotence paradox, of note, rears its head: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that they can't lift it?"
The other angle of Omnipotence, set apart from the "functional" aspect described above, is the angle of maximal power; of being fundamentally unable to be surpassed, on pain of logical contradiction. Although obviously related to the above formulation of the concept, this aspect can be seen as dealing with the very grounding of it. That is to say: It is desirable to provide a mechanism that logically explains and justifies claims of boundless power. This page seeks to provide an overview of both facets of Omnipotence, as well as a guide for how the concept is used in this community.
With that being said, I feel like there are ways to distinguish when a character is truly omnipotent, or if they are the strongest character in their respective universal setting. What led me to this idea was a discussion I was having with another user, in which they argued that Celestialsapiens (Particularly Alien X) from the Ben 10 Verse, were a truly omnipotent race of creatures. I, however disagreed on the notion that it is paradoxical to have several omnipotent beings, for if one is equal to another who themselves is all-powerful, then the latter is no longer truly omnipotent; they have an equal.
Perhaps it was a difference in understanding of the word Omnipotence between the two parties and so I think this difference in understanding can be ordered to a degree of some sort.
I found a source with a very interesting way of "separating" omnipotence, and I think the wiki could look at it with open eyes and open minds.
![img]](https://i.imgur.com/pPKKVPh.png/img])
Moreso than not, I believe that when in fiction a characters mentions being Omnipotent or some kind of Omnipotent power, I believe what they are referring to is Almightiness.
Whereas on the wiki, we tend to define it as Absolute Omnipotence or sometimes Narrative Omnipotence.
Whereas on the wiki, we tend to define it as Absolute Omnipotence or sometimes Narrative Omnipotence.
With that being said, I'm not suggesting altering the tiering system. This is simply a discussion on differential understandings of omnipotence when it comes to powerscaling.
