Gods Unbound: Omnipotent Tier 0s

[Assaltwaffle]

Starting out: This is NOT a Fun and Games post. This isn't April Fools; this is real.

Introductio
For quite some time we have had all of our Tier 0 characters with "Questionable Omnipotence" as an ability. So, why do we have "questionable" omnipotence rather than just outright omnipotence? Well, I do indeed believe our reasoning for this is completely arbitrary and isn't what needs to determine a power in our Wiki.

So, why is outright omnipotence so "questionable?" Two major reasons that I will address.

1. Impossible to Prove: It is said that no matter how complex of a proof is given that omnipotence is impossible to prove, and thus cannot be used as a power or assigned as a level of being. Well, this is fine and dandy, accept if a being is boundless above all else, including beings that are capable of things the defy logic, reason, and all understanding, it is pretty much already proven. Being able to do anything is pretty simple. If a character is absolutely boundless to the point that they landed in Tier 0, then we have essentially already accepted the fact that they can do whatever they want. We are just being pedantic in saying "you have to prove it" when in practice we already have accepted it. This seems like just an excuse as to why not to use it, when the defiance of truths of reason are the main contesting point of the Omnipotence page. With that I will move on to that, and will spend much more time covering that issue.

2. Defiance of Necessary Truth: This is the big one. In philosophy, there are two types of truths: Necessary Truths and Contingent Truths. Contingent Truths are truths that are correct and apply to the here and now. For example, it is a Contingent Truth that as of 3:20 PM CST, on the 1st of April, 2018, that businessman Donald J. Trump is the President of the country known as the United States of America. It is indeed truthful to say this, but this truth is contingent on our world, and is not necessary.

For a truth to be necessary, it must defy all reason for it not to be true (thus donning the name "Truths of Reason" for some philosophers). For example, while Trump being the president right now doesn't NEED to be true, as it is possible to imagine a world in which Trump isn't the president, necessary truths must be truth in all possible worlds. It is impossible for one to imagine a world in which 2+2 = 5. As commonly used for omnipotence, it is impossible to imagine a world in which someone who can do anything, as they would be unable to create a rock they cannot lift. If the supposed omnipotent can create a rock they cannot lift, they are not omnipotent, because they cannot lift it. If the supposed omnipotent cannot create a rock they cannot lift, they are not omnipotent. The idea of omnipotence defies logic, and thus defies necessary truth. If something defies necessary truth, it cannot be acceptable or valid. Or can it?

TLDR so far: Omnipotence is paradoxical and illogical.

2A. Applying Logic to God: This will be a quick one. While omnipotence is paradoxical and illogical by all human reason, a being boundless above all things would have had to create everything, including the fundamental laws of reality that allow for logical deduction and reason. Essentially, this God would create the prerequisites for logic to exist at all. Why then are we so caught up with trying to bind a boundless God to human logic, which is only possible due to the established laws of said God, is nonsensical in and of itself. Such a God would be boundless beyond all things, including human logic. While logic is a gift, it cannot be realistically applied to a being who's very creations allowed for the existence of logic, as a concept, in the first place.

2B. Fiction Defies Logic: A lot. Fiction defies logic a lot. It doesn't take a Tier 0 to be beyond all logic in fiction. Many characters have some way of defying conventional logic. Not just contingent logic either, necessary logic. For example, can one imagine a world in which it makes logical sense for a being with no matter or physical form that exists on a conceptual level to be atomized, or broken into small material particles? No, you can't. It breaks logic; Golden King does it anyway. Can you imagine a world in which 2+2 = 5? No, you can't. It breaks logic; God-Ma makes that happen anyway. Can you imagine a world in which something can be nonexistent, yet destroyed further? No, you can't. It breaks logic; Lucemo does it anyway. Many MANY characters have powers that completely give the middle finger to necessity and reason and use paraconsistent logic, and yet we have no qualm with them, but when it comes to the omnipotents of fiction we break out the rock. It's time to stop picking and choosing here.

TLDR: Omnipotence may be paradoxical and illogical, but applying logic to a being that enables logic to exist in the first place and in some cases directly created logic is illogical in and of itself, and we already accept other characters that have illogical powers.

NOTE: STAFF ONLY

 

[Bluetrekking]

Oh, no...

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Oh, no...

Hey, I told you it was coming.

 

[Kepekley23]

I haven't read the thread yet, just glanced at the conclusion.

Are you suggesting Tier 0s are omnipotent?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I haven't read the thread yet, just glanced at the conclusion.

Are you suggesting Tier 0s are omnipotent?

For all intents and purposes, yes.

 

[Bluetrekking]

After reading this, I have to agree.

What you are illustrating is that even though omnipotence is illogical and paradoxical by laws of reasoning and possibilities, said omnipotent being is the reason those laws exist in the first place.

 

[Xmark12]

Following. I agree though that tier 0s should be labeled as fully Omnipotent... though there may be some instances where it would be good to keep the "Questionable" in there.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Following. I agree though that tier 0s should be labeled as fully Omnipotent... though there may be some instances where it would be good to keep the "Questionable" in there.

Imo if it is questionable, the character should be High 1-A at best. LoI already bit the Tier 0 dust for not being able to know everything.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I think the questionable omnipotence thing is more just to lean on the "unprovability of omnipotence." As i see it, it is to avoid working off of the meer statement of omnipotence ad proof.

 

[DMB_1]

Following. But I agree with the logic thing: an Omnipotent being should not be bound by it, and Saint Thomas' statements were made where there weren't fictionla characters that break logic to this level.

 

[Kepekley23]

I have to say I disagree completely with such an assertion from previous arguments, although I'd have to read the OP to see if you brought up anything new.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Following. But I agree with the logic thing: an Omnipotent being should not be bound by it, and Saint Thomas' statements were made where there weren't fictionla characters that break logic to this level.

Indeed. And even in philosophy true omnipotents were not unheard of. While most agreed that even God must be bound, if only by logic or his nature, others believe in a truly boundless God. Plato's Forms had a supreme being known as the Form of the Good, which while not a conventional Christian God that some other philosophers describe, is completely boundless and even created the very form of "logic" in its essence.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Accept if a being is boundless above all else, including beings that are capable of things the defy logic, reason, and all understanding, it is pretty much already proven.

Being boundless above all else in the verse and above logic and concepts isn't proof of Omnipotence. This is basically what the page is saying to begin with.

No matter how transcendent over the setting the character is, the ability to do everything, as in literally everything in all-encompassing sense, is 100% impossible to prove, and fancy "above the concepts" statements only indicate extreme power.

Omnipotence, no matter how rationalized, is a concept that can't be proven in the real world/fiction boundary.

> . While omnipotence is paradoxical and illogical by all human reason, a being boundless above all things would have had to create everything, including the fundamental laws of reality that allow for logical deduction and reason. Essentially, this God would create the prerequisites for logic to exist at all. Why then are we so caught up with trying to bind a boundless God to human logic, which is only possible due to the established laws of said God, is nonsensical in and of itself. Such a God would be boundless beyond all things, including human logic. While logic is a gift, it cannot be realistically applied to a being who's very creations allowed for the existence of logic, as a concept, in the first place.

This need not be true. Omnipotence being an application of paraconsistent logic, aka a logic that deals with its own contradictions, is more than enough. Diving into the realm of "transcending logic itself" is unnecessary.

In fact, the "can God lift the stone?" example is easily explainable when looking at the concept of Absolute Infinity, aka an omnipotent being encompassing all possibilities, infinities and sets within. These sets includes possibilities that oppose each other in conclusion. Since omnipotence IS absolutely infinite, God would both be able to lift and not lift the stone, while keeping his omnipotence intact.

In summary, I disagree with the OP on the same grounds of philosophy, and believe the current standard is fine.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

Well you are free to disagree, but it isn't like I'm not familiar with the philosophy all this is based off of, I just disagree with its use in this case. I'm not a Philosophy Major, but I am a minor with 3 1/2 years of study. So I think saying on the "ground of philosophy" is a bit off considering there are indeed philosophers and theologians that agree on an omnipotent God.

 

[Kepekley23]

I said; on the same grounds of philosophy. As if to imply philosophy backs up my argument just as easily as it'd the OP.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I said; on the same grounds of philosophy. As if to imply philosophy backs up my argument just as easily as it'd the OP.

Oh OK. The wording threw me a little but I gotchu now.

 

[Kepekley23]

Maybe dis should be highlighted?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Maybe dis should be highlighted?

Not sure if it is quite important enough. A single word on a profile that essentially has a nigh-identical meaning. We are basically arguing semantics.

I was actually planning on making a highlight-worthy thread today, so I'd rather not spam.

 

[Kepekley23]

I guess you should focus on that thread then.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Kepekley23.

In addition, our system is built on absolute transcendence above all other beings within the system, but raw power and stature do not necessarily carry over to the complete versatility of omnipotence.

As such, we would risk to end up with so strict standards for tier 0 that lots of demands would pop up that we demote the current members of the group, which would lead to lots of disorder and confusion.

In any case, DarkLK is the one who created our tiering system, so we should definitely not make such a fundamental change without his input and acceptance.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, these types of sensitive topics about the fundamental nature of our system itself should always be staff only. I will move the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is DarkLK's reply:

Again the theory is above practice... All of our tier 0 are just those who sit on top of the food chains in their own verses. And nothing prevents us from splitting these different food chains. And one chain may be less than the other. And despite the fact that there can be used some deep terms (omnipotence, boundlessness) you can always extend any chain.

I have no special problems with the current state of affairs.

 

[Aeyu]

I strongly agree with Kepekley and Ant. Tier High 1-A and 0 are a hierarchy modifier to show dominance at the top of a verse's food chain, provided the verse has multiple beings at transphysical to metaphysical levels. One verse's tier High 1-A or 0 could be vastly superior to others (CM vs Demonbane, for instance) but at these levels it is near impossible to justify actual logical versus debates in any way that won't end subjectively. As for "real omnipotence", well, I think it's absurd. I, for one am of the opinion that like omniscience and omnipresence, it only carries weight in a single particular sphere of power and thus it is very unreliable to use as a modifier. The Q Continuum in Star Trek, for instance, is repeatedly called omnipotent (as a singular entity, not the individuals or their civilization but the gestalt thereof) with no contradiction to this, but it has demonstrated nothing above hyperversal ranges in power. 1-A and above should follow the trends with the rest of tiering in determining based on the size of realms affected by abilities/AP and not based on philosophical/religious inquiry. "Absolute infinity," as proposed by Georg Cantor, is impossible to logically verify, even taking into consideration paraconsistency and axiom-violating infinite sizes. That's right: even when logic itself is violated, you can still make further extensions to a set containing all previous sets.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the support Aeyu.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree entirely with Kep and Aeyu. This wiki is not meant to be a discussion of theology, where matters of faith are required. Omnipotence in a fictional context will always be somewhat limited, as it is bound by what is shown, said, and implied on the fictional work in character.

Nobody is saying that you cannot believe in an Omnipotent Deity in real life, or that the very concept is flawed and false. If you think that this is how it came off, we're sorry.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you Matthew. I really don't think that we should mess with the structure of the upper parts of the tiering system.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Ok. I am fine with keeping it the way it is given that we treat our tier 0s as a hierarchy thing. It just comes off odd that we have so much real world philosophy and theology on the page regarding omnipotence when the real issue is in regards to the hierarchy.

Sorry for taking all this time in that case.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Thank you for being reasonable.

The omnipotence page originally simply stated why we do not use the term, but it was not very well written, so several staff members thought that it would be a good idea if an expert on the subject, i.e. Kevyn Souza would rewrite it.

Perhaps the our hierarchy approach should be better explained at the bottom of the page, but I am very tired and busy in general, so it is hard for me to focus. Is anybody else willing to help with handling it?

 

[Antvasima]

Suggestions for an expanded explanation text section would be appreciated.

 

[Ryukama]

I have to agree with Assalt here. "Omnipotence is self contradictory and defies necessary truth" is an awful reason to suggest that omnipotence can't be a thing in fiction when countless other things in fiction, which we accept in our profiles, is self contradictory and defies necessary truth. Omnipotence being completely unprovable and the hierarchy issues however, I can accept.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I agree with Ryu

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So does anybody have suggestions for how we can improve our explanation section for why we do not use definitive omnipotence? I am tired.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Maybe just rearrange things to point out that it is unprovable and point to the fact that High 1-A and 0 are a hierarchy thing, and thus this doesn't apply to them.

I'd remove pretty much all the philosophy and theology there, since I can give philosophy and theology to push the use of omnipotence.

 

[Kepekley23]

Omnipotence doesn't defy paraconsistent logic, so "omnipotence contradicts logic" is a false statement.

 

[Antvasima]

Removing all of Kevyn Souza's extensive work from the page seems very disrespectful though. He would likely get upset about it.

Perhaps we should simply rename the conclusion section of the omnipotence page to "why we do not use the concept" instead, and rewrite it with further information?

 

[Kepekley23]

Sorry, but I'm completely against Assalt's "remove it" suggestion.

 

[Antvasima]

I also do not think that we should remove it, just write a better explanation for why we do not use the concept at the bottom of the page.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

With all due respect to Kevyn, if something is outdated, not valid, or misleading, it needs to be revised/removed. I hope that if, in the future, Amy of my projects become outdated or misleading that they would not be kept out of sentiment or an attempt not to hurt my feelings.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the text itself is very informative. Wouldn't it be much better to simply rewrite the "conclusion" section at the bottom?

 

[Kepekley23]

Except Kevyn's blog isn't outdated. The argument I used and you failed to respond to comes from there. And his opinion is also backed up by actual sources in the field.

I don't like to appeal to authority, but if you want to change a standard, you need to prove the current one is flawed.

EDIT: Fixed the wording a little, I may have came off as angry