- Location
- A single human dimension
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Right, thanks.
(Now color-coded with the associated mana color for your convenience!)
Ignition (MTG/Multicross, Planeswalker PC)
- Thread starter Alivaril
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fairy tail magi: the labyrinth of magic magic the gathering magical girl lyrical nanoha (magical girl) puella magi madoka magica rwby alternate universe spoilers unreliable narrator earned your happy middle feedback appreciated life slowly gets better metaknowledge is overrated never too much fire setting knowledge not required this can only end well what could possibly go wrong?
Right, thanks.
Remember that the Agni had research about the effects of worship and about the possible afterlife. That research, in addition to our ability to draw mana from what appears to be nowhere for a mage of this plane (admittedly a trick), might serve as evidence if we use the claim that drawing power from worship = divinity.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Well, yes and no. Theological, some do use a definition of omnipotence that is limited to the logically possible, which may still be contradictory with the descriptions of some deities, but isn't logically impossible. But other than that, yeah, the common use of the word is paradoxical.
We have ready access to mage-killer golems, sensed one of their great secrets just by being there, and have the powers comparable to Extreme Magic. Most people are not going to walk up and confront us on our titles, no matter how nice we seem. Especially not those from feudal societies.
Thing is, "deity" has an established meaning on other planes. While, based on canon, this plane doesn't entirely lack deities of it's own, their defining characteristics aren't well known. Hell, I'm not sure they're well-known to mortals on Velgarth or Earthland, beyond those of a certain level of power, or who regularly interact with deities. While the gods are very much tangible, active forces on those worlds, they don't exactly go around explaining the rules to just any schmuck on the street who asks.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Okay, I spoke imprecisely and rushed things.
To clarify, consider two entities:
1) An entity who has the power to hear prayers and power to create an afterlife for the dead. But who could conceivably be destroyed through whatever passes for "normal-ish" means within the setting, and who aside from prayer and the afterlife, has no direct power to perform overt miracles beyond what the known science and magic of the setting could somehow accomplish (i.e. power on par with "oh, a powerful magician could do that" in a fantasy setting).
2) An entity who has no power to hear prayers or to create an afterlife, in that when someone is dead, they are irreversibly dead. However, they have absolute power over the physical particles and forces that make up the universe, achieving feats that no known science and magic could accomplish. They are surely able to create duplicates and simulacra of a person, or to stop a person from dying, and in a very materialistic sense they are "omnipotent," but they do not possess the power to create an independent realm of reality in which "life after death" is a thing, because of that being a contradiction in terms (you can't be alive if you've died).
Both entities can make different credible claims to be a 'god' in the usual sense of the word, despite having totally separate and (in effect) non-overlapping powersets.
Only if we deliberately choose to use a meaningless definition of "omnipotent." The idea that omnipotence is self-contradictory comes from the idea that omnipotence can be used to do things that are themselves self-contradictory, such as "create a square triangle."
If we define 'omnipotence' as 'able to do all the things,' then we have to ask the question of "what is and is not a thing?" One can argue that a 'square-shaped triangle' is not a thing. Just because we can combine words in the English language to 'symbolize' this impossibility, doesn't mean that there's any real thing- be it abstract or concrete- that corresponds to the definition. Insofar as 'square-shaped triangle' has no coherent definition, it is in no way a limitation on an omnipotent being to say that they can't create one.
Omnipotence doesn't automatically entail the ability to do things that aren't even logically coherent enough for us to say whether or not they can be (or have been) done. And absent that, a reasonable definition of 'omnipotent' is possible: Namely, the ability to do every logically self-consistent thing.
Okay, but we cannot actually know how precise this guy's definition of a 'god' is, or what he thinks a 'god' is, or anything else. The fact that 'god' has some definite meaning in the eyes of supernatural creatures from other settings where they're more active* is kind of irrelevant in terms of Terry's own local cultural context.
*(does this plane even HAVE gods in the normal sense of the word???)
I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I'm saying.
What I'm getting at is that us trying to apply 'regalia' magic or otherwise puff ourselves up to look more imposing is not a good form of argumentation to make to someone who is questioning "so, how are you a god, as distinct from just a very powerful magician?" Because it's exactly the kind of thing an egotistical magician who wants to keep up the pretense of being a god might do.
Well yes; my point is that mortals might in some way or other duplicate or approximate ONE of the things a god can do through some combination of magic and technology. Like, one common ability attributed to gods is to heal the sick. My general practitioner can also heal the sick. That doesn't make him a god.
For purposes of actually communicating with people from different cultural backgrounds, the trait of godhood is much better modeled as "does this entity have several of the abilities off the following list" than as "does this entity have this single specific ability?"
I mean, this is kind of based on the assumption that everyone is mutually comprehensible and using the same definitions, even when they come from literally different planets that have never been in cultural contact before?
Definitions cannot be objectively true or false, they're consensuses about how we choose to represent relevant concepts. You can't perform a geometric proof or something to 'compel' someone to start using the 'right' definition of a word; you have to persuade them by advancing arguments to the effect that their old definition is somehow not appropriate. Sort of like the argument I advance above about why 'omnipotent' isn't a self-contradictory concept.
Last edited:
I actually think it's pointless to argue within his definition of divinity.
We're the one making a claim here, not him. That means we get to set the definition of that claim. If his definition doesn't fit, then we can either say that his definition is wrong (a combative stance) or that according to his definition it would be impossible to prove but according to ours we could prove it (a less combative stance).
Accordingly, it's incorrect to ask for his definition without providing ours first.
We aren't trying to win by arguing against his argument. He's trying to win by arguing against ours. We're the ones who made a claim that's being argued against, NOT him.
We're the one making a claim here, not him. That means we get to set the definition of that claim. If his definition doesn't fit, then we can either say that his definition is wrong (a combative stance) or that according to his definition it would be impossible to prove but according to ours we could prove it (a less combative stance).
Accordingly, it's incorrect to ask for his definition without providing ours first.
We aren't trying to win by arguing against his argument. He's trying to win by arguing against ours. We're the ones who made a claim that's being argued against, NOT him.
Last edited:
Magnostadt strikes me more as an industrial society.
We have to use clearly defined terms if we want to have a meaningful conversation. Might as well introduce some.
Besides, giving these definitions would in part answer his question.
[X] Power and feats are not evidence of divinity. The main characteristics of divinity are the ability to receive worship from followers, to hear genuine prayers, and eventually to create an afterlife for worshipers. Any other definition misses the essential points.
-[X] Your family has studied the use of power from worship and was able to establish the existence of an afterlife for followers by observing the movement of souls upon the moment of death.
-[X] Demonstrate how mana can be obtained without an observable source if necessary to illustrate the difficulties in proving where it comes from.
-[X] Obviously with all that extra power available, divine individuals are capable of extreme feats of magic, but that's basically a side effect.
[X] If he has his own definition, he is free to believe what he wants, but it won't disprove your claim of divinity based on your abilities related to worship.
e: Interestingly if we go by this definition, the Rukh itself might be a god.
-[X] Your family has studied the use of power from worship and was able to establish the existence of an afterlife for followers by observing the movement of souls upon the moment of death.
-[X] Demonstrate how mana can be obtained without an observable source if necessary to illustrate the difficulties in proving where it comes from.
-[X] Obviously with all that extra power available, divine individuals are capable of extreme feats of magic, but that's basically a side effect.
[X] If he has his own definition, he is free to believe what he wants, but it won't disprove your claim of divinity based on your abilities related to worship.
e: Interestingly if we go by this definition, the Rukh itself might be a god.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Hm, you know, that's not bad. It clearly answers Terry's actual question ("I still don't see how [snip list of observed feats] makes you qualified for the title of goddess."), presents him with an alternative viewpoint that he may be interested to hear.
@SynchronizedWritersBlock , would you object to using the verb 'establish' or some other such thing in place of 'infer?' I'd like to encourage Jade to be definite about this afterlife existing, since as I understand it she's been told it exists by people she trusts and she does in fact believe it's real. 'Infer' has a certain connotation of being rather tentative.
@SynchronizedWritersBlock , would you object to using the verb 'establish' or some other such thing in place of 'infer?' I'd like to encourage Jade to be definite about this afterlife existing, since as I understand it she's been told it exists by people she trusts and she does in fact believe it's real. 'Infer' has a certain connotation of being rather tentative.
Hestia&theCourt
Turns out we're plural too.
- Location
- In transition
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I'm with you on this one: with this change, I'd happily change over to Synchronized's vote. (Man, there is just no good way to abbreviate that name, is there?)
SWB? That's what everyone uses.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
[x]my definition of a God is someone that you get benifts from worshipping. I can hear and anwser prayers and make an afterlife for my followers.
Alright It is a lie, but it one of those lies that becomes true.
Alright It is a lie, but it one of those lies that becomes true.
Torgamous
Aspiring Gynoid
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The problem is not that it's an unconvincing argument, it's that regardless of how convincing it is it's an argument that ignores why Jade is in fact calling herself a goddess. Look at the discussion with Sigurd about whether Jade's a God. He doesn't ask Jade what she thinks a God was because that's irrelevant. He actually knows what a God is, so he approaches it like he's explaining taxonomy, because that's exactly what he's doing. The only reason for Jade to not do the same is if you want to characterize her as someone not yet used to the whole "these things actually exist" business.
[x] SynchronizedWritersBlock
Last edited:
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
[X] Power and feats are not evidence of divinity. The main characteristics of divinity are the ability to receive worship from followers, to hear genuine prayers, and eventually to create an afterlife for worshipers. Any other definition misses the essential points.
-[X] Your family has studied the use of power from worship and was able to infer the existence of an afterlife for followers by observing the movement of souls upon the moment of death.
-[X] Draw mana from an extra-planar source to demonstrate how mana can be obtained without an observable source.
-[X] Obviously with all that extra power available, divine individuals are capable of extreme feats of magic, but that's basically a side effect.
[X] If he has his own definition, he is free to believe what he wants, but it won't disprove your claim of divinity based on your abilities related to worship.
Don't want to mention receiving power from worshipers. We have been warned that there is trouble when people treat it like a transaction.
-[X] Your family has studied the use of power from worship and was able to infer the existence of an afterlife for followers by observing the movement of souls upon the moment of death.
-[X] Draw mana from an extra-planar source to demonstrate how mana can be obtained without an observable source.
-[X] Obviously with all that extra power available, divine individuals are capable of extreme feats of magic, but that's basically a side effect.
[X] If he has his own definition, he is free to believe what he wants, but it won't disprove your claim of divinity based on your abilities related to worship.
Don't want to mention receiving power from worshipers. We have been warned that there is trouble when people treat it like a transaction.
We should definitely ask for his definition, as well as provide ours. And explain the reason for ours.
Because, ultimately, you have to ask yourself: what are the gods for? IRL gods and religion are and were ways to explain the world and to influence it by humans.
Here, gods actually exist. So, what's a difference between "god", "powerful spirit" and "demon"? I would say that "not inherently malevolent", "receives prayers and can answer them, as well as get power fro mprayer" and "can manage afterlife" would be good criteria.
This is blatant fraud. This is pulling a trick that we know he won't be able to catch, but this is incredibly internally dishonest. And I am completely against it.
Torgamous
Aspiring Gynoid
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The trouble is that it gets annoying when people do that. Jorgen Von Strangle isn't going to pop up and take Agneyastra away if we tell someone the secret.
Those criteria are wrong though. Sigurd told us that powerful demons were able to draw power from worship if they were divine in nature, so some gods are inherently malevolent.
It's the same appearance as what drawing worship-mana would look like, but more importantly, it lets us demonstrate how we can't show him what worship-mana looks like because he lacks the senses to detect how it's different.
Then we should explain the lesson to him as well, seeing as he lacks the senses to detect how it's different.
Made an edit to make it more clear.
Hestia&theCourt
Turns out we're plural too.
- Location
- In transition
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[x] SynchronizedWritersBlock
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
SWB: You might want to add in a reminder to use sing speech.
- Location
- Germany
[x] SynchronizedWritersBlock
Maybe add that this often includes conceptual abilities, and demonstrate with our absolute fire immunity? Yes, it's not proof, but it shouldn't hurt and it's the one divine trait we can properly show off.
- Location
- Netherlands
[X] You'll be able to hear prayers, draw power from worship, and can already stop time for entire universes. You're not claiming to be an monotheistic omnipotent God, just a polytheistic goddess.
-[X] There's also a fairly good chance you'll be able to set up an afterlife for your followers, but you haven't gotten to that part yet.
-[X] There's also a fairly good chance you'll be able to set up an afterlife for your followers, but you haven't gotten to that part yet.
Jade is doing alright, she even used sing speech when talking to Terry.
Strictly speaking, it's a planeswalker trait. And whether planeswalkers are gods is uncertain.
fictionfan
Please sir, may I have some Meows?
- Location
- Tempe, AZ
No reason to say polytheistic when we know of no other gods on this plane.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Based on canon? Yes, but they're mostly not exactly obvious in their effect on the world. They're also able to subtly influence the entire world, and/or end it on a whim. Really, despite this guy's statements, Solomon qualifies quite easily, much as he probably wishes he didn't, him being an egalitarian by inclination. Ill Ilah's got it in the name. And there are...others. Spoiler-y others.
Edit: Actually, I think Solomon would get along quite well with the Heterodyne Boys. There are similarities in their political philosophies and stories.
Magnostadt is also a young society, and it's magicians come from all over the world. Presuming the environment they were raised in is not going to be accurate, in many cases. Hell, they had noble students in-canon. Aladdin's pal Sphintus from not!Egypt.
It wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. Deities here tend to be made of Rukh, canonically. Not that everything made of Rukh would be a deity.
Last edited: