Limitation of Omnipotence, what the heck is Omnipotence anyway?

[Szutjo]

So i stream through Omnipotence page with extreme carefulness and i still sustain heavy brain damage.

Curiosity brought me to this barrier of logic.

What in the 10 realms is this Omnipotence? What is its defined nature and property? If it is just a term, concept, ability, skill, characteristic quality then surely logic mainupation or concept manipulation or reality manipulation or causality manipulation or reality manipulation must have effect on it.


If it operate based on logic then logic manipiulation should be able to do something about it or concept manipulation should right?

 

[Promestein]

Omnipotence is a hard thing to explain. It's a sort of boundless, all-powerful, all-encompassing state. Things like logic or concepts or reality or causality don't mean anything to something on this level.

 

[Antvasima]

Kevyn Souza and Sera Loveheart are planning to eventually revise the page, so it turns more comprehensive, and is of much higher quality than currently.

 

[Golden_Void]

It's everything and it's nothing.

 

[Szutjo]

So you mean it has all the property of every abilities and its property is prioritised over other abilities' and its property can not be overwritten or negated by other abilities' characteristics even if that ability is omnipotence itself?

In whose favor did omnipotence work for? Is it the user's? Say if the user want to remove omnipotence from him or herself then it can not work on the user favor because the user want to rid of it but because it can not be negated or overwritten by anything it can not be removed. So that means it only works for itself but if it works for itself then what is it?

 

[Golden_Void]

Well if it could be negated by Omnipotence then the person was never omni to begin with.

As for the rest, I'm not sure.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

True omnipotence as a concept is much more philosophical and theological than simply power related. For instance, in relation to your question above, yes. An omnipotent being could remove its own power, give it to another being, and yet still be omnipotent despite being powerless. The duality of can and cannot are nothing to something with omnipotence. This is why it is not a provable claim when used in fiction.

 

[Szutjo]

Then is it possible that there are degrees of omnipotence, similar to how there are types of infinite in mathematics?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

For actual omnipotence? No. Though we cannot prove omnipotence itself.

 

[Szutjo]

In conclusion, it is still not possible to define its nature, its allegiance, its root that base on it it operates. Feel like a labyrinth of logic.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Pretty much. When it comes down to it, it's humans using their logic to try to fully understand something that is not bound by said logic, nor basic duality as they understand it.

 

[Szutjo]

Is it possible that we create a set of understanding/logic that can understand it? Simply put it is like drawing 3D objects on a sheet of paper.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

One can have a base understanding of the idea, yes. But by its nature we cannot fully comprehend its capability.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

Omnipotence is, above all, an incommunicable attribute of God. It is a concept older than Western civilization's own. Omnipotence has arisen in monotheistic religions to qualify its divinity as supreme and unconditioned, and its nature is always divine.

Then is it possible that there are degrees of omnipotence, similar to how there are types of infinite in mathematics?

There are no "levels of omnipotence". However, there is a concept proposed by the mathematician Georg Cantor called "Absolute Infinity". It would, in this case, be an unrestricted boundless, which would transcend all transfinite numbers (dimensionality is also included here). This concept is often associated with God.

 

[Szutjo]

@kevyn souza

Define God and Divine.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

In monotheistic religions, God is "the greater conceivable being". In a dictionary, you might find something similar to:
Absolute principle, transcendent reality or primordial being responsible for the origin of the universe, the laws that regulate it and the beings that inhabit it, source and guarantee of the good and all moral excellence.

"Divine" is anything related to God.

 

[Szutjo]

By statistics, that definition was generally accepted by majority if not all mankinds. Thus, going by the generally accepted principle of definition it is true. However, the capacity of Omnipotence still haven't been explored. How will Omnipotence interact with itself?

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

In whose favor did omnipotence work for? Is it the user's? Say if the user want to remove omnipotence from him or herself then it can not work on the user favor because the user want to rid of it but because it can not be negated or overwritten by anything it can not be removed. So that means it only works for itself but if it works for itself then what is it?

You mean that?

Well, you may disagree, but if we enter into Christian theology a little, we will see that Jesus was God (John 1:1) and became man (John 1:14), emptied of himself (Philippians 2:5-7). We can say that he ceased to be omnipotent from there. On the basis of Christianity, it is possible for the omnipotent to cease to be omnipotent as well as to be again. Perhaps this is impossible in other religions, this varies from vision-to-vision.

Omnipotence acts in favor of the will of the one who possesses this quality. What will be done will be what the omnipotent decides to do.

 

[Szutjo]

Beside Christian and in a broader sense, the Abrahamic Faith, is there any other description or interpretation of Omnipotence? Is it possible that Omnipotence was described differently from culture to culture, School of thought to other School of thought? Thus, generating many categories of Omnipotence?

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

Yes, the definition varies. Currently there are two currents - scholastic and illogical. In the scholastic side, God is conditioned by the laws of classical logic; in the illogical, God is unconditioned by logic itself (scholastic is most defended among philosophers). They generaly aren't visions of the religion itself, but the interpretation of certain theologians about it. So much so that Thomas Aquinas (catholic) defended the scholastic vision, and Nicholas of Cusa (also catholic) defended the illogical vision.

 

[Amexim]

When it comes to being incomprehensible, what do you call it when Omnipotent characters fight each other? Suggs-- as cringy and up it's ass as it is-- does a good demonstration on my opinion of it. I mean, Omnipotent beings and shit don't follow any form of logic as we can describe or know it, and yet somehow they have an equivalent to "existing" and possibly equivalents to other rules, except those equivalencies are paradoxically both similar to and completely alien to our logic with no in-verse overlap. It's so ******* cool. Also, what do you think of characters that are stated to be like us-- 4D (or 3D? I don't know which we are)-- and they some how manage to body 27 dimensional beings and so on? Like, a being with a normal body that we can understand that can fight on par with 1-A's and Tier 0's? My goal is to make a verse that basically fits this whole tiering system with my own spin I guess, so I wanna know what other people think.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

When it comes to being incomprehensible, what do you call it when Omnipotent characters fight each other?

At that point, we would enter into omnipotence as "a superpower like any other" - which is a complete absurdity. It is impossible to have more than one omnipotent being to begin with. If one being is omnipotent, he is one, and there is no other. My opinion is that this battle would not even happen.

Suggs-- as cringy and up it's ass as it is-- does a good demonstration on my opinion of it. I mean, Omnipotent beings and shit don't follow any form of logic as we can describe or know it, and yet somehow they have an equivalent to "existing" and possibly equivalents to other rules, except those equivalencies are paradoxically both similar to and completely alien to our logic with no in-verse overlap. It's so ******* cool. Also, what do you think of characters that are stated to be like us-- 4D (or 3D? I don't know which we are)-- and they some how manage to body 27 dimensional beings and so on? Like, a being with a normal body that we can understand that can fight on par with 1-A's and Tier 0's? My goal is to make a verse that basically fits this whole tiering system with my own spin I guess, so I wanna know what other people think.

I honestly consider the work of Suggs... pathetic. Sorry if it seems offensive. He simply invented a lot of meaningful words to "transcend omnipotence", as well as focusing on virtually everything in power, not history. He simply ignored that "omni" means everything and that implies that, no matter how great the level, it will still be below "omni". But anyway, if you plan to create a verse with these rules, go ahead, who gives the rules is you. The power is in your hands.

 

[Antvasima]

@Kevyn Souza

Will you have time to work on your blog about the subject soon? Sera needs to use it as a template for reworking our lacklustre official page.

 

[Amexim]

The concept of Omnipotence is already absurd in it of itself. Nothing can be Omnipotent, because it would imply that it could destroy itself and somehow not be able to be destroyed by anything. Omnipotence is a Paradox, and what's more, in the Illogical understanding of Omnipotence, it doesn't abide by normal rules. I mean, I like Suggsverse as an idea for having omnipotence having no limit and shit like that, but come on. If you want to say that there can't be two omnipotent beings due to conflicts, there can't be one omnipotent being either, as the concept of being ALL POWERFUL allows the user to contradict it's own Omnipotence in any thesible and unthesible way, including and transcending the ability to absolutely destroy itself without exception and without any way to fight back or revive itself.

Because it can do ANYTHING, you know.

So, we have to establish rules to mitigate the contradictions, ruining the illogical, but truly limitless version of Omnipotence in favor of it simply being another superpower where we have to determine who is better at using it than others.

Otherwise, the whole wiki breaks...

 

[Amexim]

And thanks. I just want to know everyone's take on it. I mean, being Limitlessly powerful and Omnipotent would also mean that no one, not even yourself, could stop you (from destroying anything to the point of the most absolute Destruction for example. Even if that someone is yourself. And that is the problem with Omnipotence. Doesn't completely work every way you apply it. It's an awesome paradox that we just gotta run with.)

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

@Amexim
I disagree with absolutely everything you said. I can say that omnipotence is possible in itself, and logically consistent. But I don't have the good head to debate this at the moment.

@Ant
Yes, I'm actually almost finishing the post. Again, excuse me for the delay.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Thank you for the help.

 

[FanofRPGs]

An omnipotent being can very well destroy itself, because if it cannot, that means it is not able to destroy itself, aka not omnipotent.

 

[Szutjo]

The story of the rock that Omnipotence can not lift is a summary of "Can an Omnipotent contradict itself in favor of itself?" And because we have already identified that Omnipotent is illogical and pledge its allegiance to the one possess. It can destroy itself and still being omnipotent and still be logical.

 

[Amexim]

But if it can destroy itself, then it can be defeated by someone. Can Omnipotent, ALL POWERFUL beings be defeated by anything and still call themselves Omnipotent? What do you mean by, pledge itself to it's owner? I mean, that doesn't get rid of the internal contradiction. Even when they can choose to never give themselves Omnipotence again by the action of creating an impassible wall, for example, that kind of implies that they were never omnipotent. Because any omnipotent person that could undo said omnipotence has a foe that could thesibly do them in, themselves. Omnipotence can't have an exception. You're either able to do anything without limits and, as there are no limits, nothing and no one can stop you. Or you can't, and there is a limit-- even if that limit is you. Any counters to why this isn't true?

 

[FanofRPGs]

That means an omnipotent is unable to not be beaten, which means it is not omnipotent.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread does not appear to go anywhere. Perhaps I should close it?

 

[FanofRPGs]

This thread does not appear to go anywhere. Perhaps I should close it?

That seems reasonable

 

[Amexim]

TLR; If you're omnipotent, you're the unbreakable shield and the hammer that can break anything. And you can't be both, because being one, means sacrificing the other. How can you be ALL POWERFUL, and have someone/something be able to defeat you at any time? That foe being yourself isn't an exception. You can't be absolutely limitless enough to be able to absolutely limit yourself. Logically speaking.

Omnipotence could potentially transcend logical paradoxes, so... That would be my answer.

 

[FanofRPGs]

TLR; If you're omnipotent, you're the unbreakable shield and the hammer that can break anything. And you can't be both, because being one, means sacrificing the other. How can you be ALL POWERFUL, and have someone/something be able to defeat you at any time? That foe being yourself isn't an exception. You can't be absolutely limitless enough to be able to absolutely limit yourself. Logically speaking.
Omnipotence could potentially transcend logical paradoxes, so... That would be my answer.

omnipotence

The word "omni" means all

and potence comes from the latin word "possum" which means able to or can

So it does not mean all powerful, it means all-able to.

Anyways, this should be locked.

 

[Amexim]

What's the difference? If you're able to do all, you can't be unable to do all at any point-- the problem still exists, the semantics just changed.

 

[Amexim]

I can do anything without any exceptions absolutely, and therefore, nothing/no one can stop me, except when I choose to stop myself and limit myself to an absolute point with absolutely no exceptions.

Paradox.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread seems to just endlessly waste people's time. Kevyn Souza and Azathoth have already attempted to answer. I will close it now.