• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Philosophers' God Profiles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assaltwaffle

Assaltwaffle

VS Battles
Retired
8,438
3,292
While we obviously won't make profiles for the currently worshiped, but what about God in the eyes of historic philosophers?

The view of God for Leibniz is OP as crap and they would be interesting; not sure if it violates our terms though.
 
If it was possible to make profiles for Philosophical entities, then Anaximander's "Apeiron" would be a cool to add.
 
DMB 1 said:
Yobobojojo said:
I would like to see this.
However, as for the terms, what constitutes currently worshipped?
Click to expand...
The Christian God, the Muslim God, etchetera.
Click to expand...
Except, you know, people still worship thenorse gods, but they do not count. What makes them different?
 
MasterOfArda said:
Would that maybe be better as blogs for the sake of not causing controversey?
Click to expand...
I personally don't see any controversy for having profiles for the personal view on God of a philosopher who died 300 years ago, but that is just me. I obviously do not support profiles for the dirties these views are based off of.
 
In fact, anyone could say "This is what I think of God!" and we wouldn't have any way of sorting people who actually have a legitmate opinion with people who have no idea what they're talking about.
 
@Masterofarda

Any philosopher of enough note should be applicable for this. Anyone can write fiction as well, but unless that fiction gets popular enough it is confined to FC/OC Wiki. This cuts out the general population say "here is what I think" and limits it to only the big players of philosophy, like Descartes, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc.
 
I personally do not see the logic in banning profiles of philosopher interpretations when we allow objectively more negative and controversial profiles like YHVH. In fact, the same could be said of all profiles of worshipped gods.
 
I'm pretty sure the standard here is that if it is copyrighted/makes money then it is allowed, right?

So you're saying we would use a method similar to fiction. Unless it is at least somewhat well known it will be confined to FC/OC? Theorically someone from here could add something but it is unlikely for their work to become noteworthy?
 
MasterOfArda said:
I'm pretty sure the standard here is that if it is copyrighted/makes money then it is allowed, right?
So you're saying we would use a method similar to fiction. Unless it is at least somewhat well known it will be confined to FC/OC? Theorically someone from here could add something but it is unlikely for their work to become noteworthy?
Click to expand...
No, it specifically must be popular and well known to some degree.
 
That's my point. You could become an author and right down your work here, but it is unlikely that you are. Same with philosophy. Unless you have some form of published work like a book you would not be allowed (Right?).
 
MasterOfArda said:
That's my point. You could become an author and right down your work here, but it is unlikely that you are. Same with philosophy. Unless you have some form of published work like a book you would not be allowed (Right?).
Click to expand...
No
 
MasterOfArda said:
Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
If a work is not well made or is obscure, it is not allowed to have a profile. This was discussed a while back with a published work made by one of the accounts here, and was denied to to obscurity.
 
In my opinion making profiles for viewpoints on religious entities or otherwise making profiles for the purpose of reflecting a philosophical school of thought is just not the topic of the wiki.

I am completly fine with such things being debated in blogs and stuff, but I just kinda think its off-topic in regards to the task of ranking fictional characters, which is what the wiki is for.
 
I am pretty sure profiles in this wiki aren't just limited to fictional characters

We even have profiles for Real World scientifical / whatever concepts, and even events and natural phenomena such as explosions and cataclysms. With the last examples obviously being far from being "fictional characters"
 
Even if we were allowed to make profile of "God" or "gods", how would that work exactly? Some texts about deities are usually vague, metaphorical and prone to different interpretations.
 
From my understanding, we can't make profiles for real-life individuals (i.e. YouTube personalities) or for things that could be controversial religiously or ideologically (i.e. the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods).

That said, I don't think it would be totally out of our rules to make a profile for a deity that isn't widely worshiped or an obscure interpretation of it.
 
Should be fine as long as it isn't a modern belief system. Royalty however, also has a point.
 
Ultima Reality said:
Inb4 three or four new Tier 0s appear
Click to expand...
None of the philosophers I've studied have a Tier 0 God. Leibniz's God is the most powerful so far at High 1-B.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I think this would get out of hand with the Tier 0s, lol.
Click to expand...
All the god interpretations of most of the major philosophers are limited (some quite significantly) and would not get to tier 0.
 
I can think of three Tier 0s based on philosophy alone.
 
MasterOfArda said:
No 1-A God? That seems a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...
A fair number of "God" interpretations are bound to and completely compose all physical aspects of reality. Spinoza's God, for example, composes all of reality, and everything that exists, including space and matter, are God.
 
MasterOfArda said:
Sera Loveheart said:
I can think of three Tier 0s based on philosophy alone.
Click to expand...
No I'm curious. Which ones?
(Looking back on all the "Gods" I know there really isn't any 0s)
Click to expand...
Eevn if they haven't the feats, many gods are considered and intepreted as Omnipotent.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
A fair number of "God" interpretations are bound to and completely compose all physical aspects of reality. Spinoza's God, for example, composes all of reality, and everything that exists, including space and matter, are God.
Click to expand...
Taht seems strange. Well now you've sparked my curiousity. I would like to know about all these Gods. Is this how you want people to support this? Making them so curious about the Gods they want profiles?
 
No I'm curious. Which ones?
(Looking back on all the "Gods" I know there really isn't any 0s)

Eevn if they haven't the feats, many gods are considered and intepreted as Omnipotent.

The term "omnipotent" can be interpreted in many ways, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
413
Views
26K
omegabronic
omegabronic
PrinceofPein
Minor Overgeared Revision (Naming Rule)
Replies
15
Views
777
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
Regarding Page Names (Semantics)
Replies
21
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top