Can We Defeat An Omnipotent Being?

[5elementsage]

So, I've seen a good handful of stories, such as Left Beyond Quest and the plot of the game Messiah, tackle the topic of humanity's plight to war against Heaven and Hell, eventually conquering them both. They generally go along the lines of "well, God is infinite but demons aren't, so Hell should be easier to conquer than Heaven" and so on. I wanted to take a whack at it myself, construct a world in which a sufficiently advanced mankind with satisfactory limits can identify such a being and devise a means to overthrow them. I immediately came upon a big fat question: can God be defeated?

Let's start with a disclaimer: I am areligious, but this thread is not meant as a direct disrespect to anyone's religion. It is more of a hypothetical meant for a thought experiment. And of course a worldbuilding project. My aim here is to establish whether this supposedly infinite being can truly be undermined for the purpose of my story, and how a variety of contributors think that would go. In my real-world beliefs, it is my perspective that gods can exist, but that the only logical definition of a god (objective to all religions) is a person or thing that is worshiped. This post is therefore not intended to disprove anything's existence or make fun of religion, because I am just fine letting people believe what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I have done some research, so I will open by explaining what I've found. The next few posts will detail: What is God?, The Problems of Omni-, and a Survey of Answers.

In summary: 'What Is God' will describe a being who is primarily discussed in Apophatic Theology, who has infinite power, who is holy, and who embodies the concept of love. Such being created omniversal space-time, and thus is not bound to any regulations of 3D space or linear time, or higher spatiotemporal dimensions. Such being defined himself as the pinnacle of all that is sacred, and thus defined what is immoral (Sin) as that which departs from or runs counter to his being. This being has been described via Aseity, Eternity, Goodness, Graciousness, Holiness, Immanence, Immutability, Impassibility, Impeccability, Incomprehensibility, Incorporeality, Infinity, Jealousy, Love, Mission, Mystery, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, etc. Additionally, the only way any of this is known up to the present day, is a single text written over a thousand years ago. There are schools of thought, and even texts, which seem to refute this singular source, or at least present questions.

'The Problems of Omni-' will get into logical and philosophical discussion of why this deity's many attributes are questionable or even impossible. In particular, the Omnipotence Paradox, the Problem of Evil, the Argument from Poor Design, and the many loopholes of omniscience and omnipresence.

'A Survey of Answers' will show what answers I have been given from interviewed persons and general survey, relating to the topic. Many of them differ quite widely from my perspective, and should provide some interesting diversity to startus off.

 

[5elementsage]

Aseity - The claim that God is so independent he does not need us/does not need anything.

Eternity - As the creator of linear time, God does not have a beginning or an end, and does not exist in a succession of moments. He sees all time equally vividly, and retains the ability to act within linear time with a forward progression.

Goodness - The claim that God is the final standard of good, and all that God is and does is worthy of approval. Seen as including kindness, love, grace, mercy, and longsuffering.

Graciousness - The claim that God is loving and merciful.

Holiness - The claim that God exists separate from sin and cannot be corrupted by it.

Immanence - The claim that the divine encompasses and is manifested in the world.

Immutability - The claim that God cannot change.

Impassibility - The claim that God cannot experience pain or suffering without sending himself as a human to suffer in human nature. I.e. God must choose to suffer, else he does not.

Impeccability - The claim that God is unable to sin. For God to corrupt himself or give in to sin, he must become "not God," which is described as a logical impossibility. It is impossible for God to not be God.

Incomprehensibility - The claim that God cannot be fully understood, nor can his motives or understanding be grasped.

Incorporeality - The essence of God is spiritual.

Infinity - The creator of physical space, God cannot be defined by or bound within any number of spatial dimensions or measures. The creation of God's human body is therefore an expression of the sum, rather than a complete compression thereof.

Jealousy - The claim that God is zealous to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when broken.

Love - The claim that God is perfectly loving internal to his nature (i.e. aspects of himself, such as his son), perfectly loving of his creation, holds a perfect stance of salvation for his fallen world, has an exclusive form of love for his chosen, and has a form of love conditioned on obedience.

Mission - The great commission for all to hear the will and attributes of God.

Mystery - There will always be aspects of God that are not known, or aspects that are not fully known.

Omnipotence -The claim that God is capable of anything he desires/is capable of desiring. As he is allegedly omnibenevolent, he is capable of desiring all good things, though he does not desire all good at all times, instead choosing when good takes place in what forms. He is also incapable of desiring evil, and incapable of any evil action.

Omnipresence - Not only does God transcend physical space, but he is present and aware within all space and time. No location exists at any time where there is no God.

Omniscience - The claim that God possesses all knowledge, or alternatively defines all knowledge via defining all truth.

Oneness - There is only one unified God. Whether there are triune persons or not, there is only one of Him.

Providence - All that is made available for mankind to access is given them by God.

Righteousness - Absolute, holy, distributive justice.

Simplicity - God does not have or do half-measures. Everything that he is, he is infinitely and fully. Everything else, he is not.

Sovereignty - The claim that God is in complete control of everything at all times. Nothing happens that he does not will to happen.

Transcendence - The claim that God is immutable to the world he is Immanent within.

Veracity - The claim that God is the inerrant source of truth in all things.

Wrath - Though God loves all that is right and good and conforms to his character, he has no tolerance for anything that is opposed to his character.

The Text - The only way any of this is known, or can be known by anyone, is a single source text. According to those who advocate this text as his Word, inerrant and perfect, this work was spoken to various writers piecemeal through the course of human events, ending several centuries ago where it was determined that no more "Books" would be added to it. Though all these writers are human and subjected it to various translations, its origin as divine is said to make it perfect. As the perfect source of truth, it is claimed that this text is the only way to know anything for sure. All other human writings are flawed and/or incomplete, and thus cannot be trusted.

Other Texts? - Originally, before being declared 'canon,' this book was a collection of historical myths, prophetic texts, songs, sayings, and legal doctrines. After being declared 'canon,' the book inspired another such text and its subsequent follow-ups, in the collected scriptures of a separate religion of same origin. For the simplicity of our discussion, there is one text.

What We Can Know - In this project, we are assuming that some kind of being exists to have spurred on the religion and the creation of this source text. Since the only source making any of these claims is this one text, it should be possible to locate the being God through other means, and subject him to the scientific method and peer review. That will produce information which confirms, nuances, or refutes what the single text says.

 

[5elementsage]

Types of Omnipotence
Type 1 - God is absolutely omnipotent. If God is this type, he can do anything that can be expressed in a string of words, even if it is self-contradictory.
Type 2 - God is omnipotent. "God can do X" is true if and only if X is logically consistent. The question of God making something he cannot lift is irrelevant to this type, because that is illogical.
Type 3 - God is omnipotent. "God can do X" is true if and only if "God does X" is logically consistent. For example, I can fashion something I cannot lift, because logically there is a limit to my strength. But there is no limit to God's, therefore it is not logical to ask if he can make such things.
Type 4 - God is omnipotent. Whenever "God will bring about X" is logically possible, then "God can bring about X" is true.
Type 5 - God is almighty. God is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with God in power, even unsuccessfully. God is not necessarily omnipotent, but simply more capable than anyone else.

Aside from simply assuming God is only capable of the logical, or that God is unimaginably capable of illogical things, there is the proposition that God, being Truth and the source of Truth, is also the source of Logic. What is logically possible is so because God decided it would be. Thereby, anything illogical is so because God does not will it. God cannot and will not defy his own will, so he will not do any illogical thing.


Problem of Evil

If God finds Evil intolerable, why does God allow Evil to exist? Is his unwilling to prevent it from existing? If he is omnipotent and unwilling to prevent evil, then he is not omnibenevolent, and any claims related to benevolence can be discredited and put to review. If he is willing to prevent Evil from existing, but Evil exists, then he is not powerful enough to do so.

The most compelling response is that evil exists to allow the growth and complexity of the human soul. However, spiritual challenges are not proportionately provided to a person's level of need. Additionally, human character can be developed directly or in constructive and nurturing ways, so evil does not appear necessary.


The Argument From Poor Design

A commonly used argument is the argument from design, which states:
1) Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
2) Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
3. This creator is God.
The countepart, that being the Argument From Poor Design, states:
1) An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would create organisms that have optimal design.
2) Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
3) Therefore, God either did not create these organisms, or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


Ethical Concerns

The single text claims many things about God, including that God advocates the government-sanctioned slaughter of those who have sex out of wedlock, those who have sex with the same sex, and those who work on the holy day. God is also depicted as commanding ethnic cleansing and genocide, and the text can be interpreted as permitting slavery, beating slaves, rape, having multiple wives, killing prisoners, and child sacrifice. God is shown punishing people for the sins of others, a wrong that is recognized by the Geneva Convention as an atrocity against mankind. These and many other ethical concerns suggest that a God who claims this to be perfectly moral, or has used divinity to decide that this is the definition of moral, is a morally repugnant creature by current standards.


Other Problems

Aseity - A being's need and level of independence have a lot to do with their physical features. Let us consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Physiological needs are, of course, base to human nature. But if God is truly incorporeal, then of course he would not have physiological needs. If God is omnipresent, he likely has no personal security concerns, and naturally such a transcendent being has no financial security issues. An omniscient being would not have accidents, and an omnipotent being would not have illnesses. But emotional security and psychological well-being are not immediately out.

Who does a being aware of all the messed-up things in time go to for therapy? What could a therapist tell someone who already knows all the answers, and yet still must experience all the horrible cruelty of the world simultaneously? For that matter, how mentally healthy could a being who intentionally created such a messed-up universe actually be? To not only be aware of all this terror, but be the one who invented it, that being cannot possibly be anything close to what we'd call sane. What about friendship and loneliness? If God is the only one like him, the only one who has always existed, surely he would have a dire need for companionship! And he couldn't really see humans as that intimate of companions, since they're so unlike him.

Then there's self-esteem needs. What if God goes unrecognized? What if no one alive knows about him? What if no one respects his achievements? If God is omnipresent, where does he get his sense of accomplishment, since he has nothing to strive for? He has no field in which to improve, and thus no satisfaction to gain from competence or mastery.

Finally, self-actualization. God cannot pursue partners, have children, or pursue goals,since these are all temporal activities. If he chose to handle these tasks in conventional time, he would preexist any partner, child, or goal, and would exist long after their conclusion. There is no thrill or joy in a pursuit he's already/always finished, and already/always lost to time.

Eternity - The act of creation is an event. An event taking place in linear time. If time did not exist, nothing could happen, including the invention of time. For God to even say "Time exists," there must be a such thing as a present moment. It is thereby a logical impossibility to commit the action of "Creating linear time." For time to exist, time must be indefinite. Unlike God, who is a thinking being, time is just a concept. And the definition of that concept is a sequence of events, occurrences of processes. Even in the hot dense state predating conventional events, processes were occurring. Since God cannot create time, and the past is infinite, God cannot predate time. That being said, God may yet be capable of observing many or all alternate timelines.

Goodness - See the above; the goodness of this described being is extraordinarily false.

Graciousness - On record, God has offered second chances and ways out, but has also destroyed cities and commissioned the destruction of populations including children and livestock. "Infinite mercy" he does not have.

Holiness - The act of creating something called sin, expressing zero tolerance for it, and committing atrocities against it, means that he is not separate from sin. He is the most closely related being there is.

Immanence - There is nothing inherently wrong with the notion that God is here. At least in our logical givens as stated.

Immutability - There are two ways to look at this. In certain records, God has declared something, then gone back on it when convinced. But in non-linear, the same God simultaneously makes the declaration and appears to change his mind, meaning that God chooses to appear as though he is changing, despite the fact that he has never deviated from what he intends to do. However, consider the fact that God is claimed to exist in all moments at once, constantly aware of all of them. That means that change is irrelevant, because he's not linear. If you are constantly doing every step all at once, and not altering any of them, you can simulate what looks like a change in process, while not changing.

Impassibility - This is another logical scenario. If you do not have certain physical structures, you cannot experience pain as we understand it. However, the general concept of pain is a warning of harm coming to you, be it physical or mental. As a thinking being, God can absolutely endure mental torment. Furthermore, a being who is constantly aware of all human suffering, and endures his own suffering throughout eternity, would likely endure constant psychological pain.

Impeccability - I would argue that the creation of a universe in which sin can and does exist, is itself sinful.

Incomprehensibility - The claim that God cannot be fully understood, nor can his motives or understanding be grasped.

Incorporeality - Spirit is the seat of emotions and character, the true undying self. While one is alive, the "spirit" is what they feel in their body and mind. When one has passed, the "spirit" is how those emotions and characteristics are remembered. So if we are to believe God is incorporeal and always has been (except for when he manifests physically), then God's original existence must be entirely emotion and memory. People can't remember something that happened before they existed. That's logically impossible. So either God had some kind of physical form before, or did not exist before humanity. Or he continues to have a physical form, and therefore is not incorporeal.

Infinity - If there was a time when physical space did not exist, there would not be a place for God to exist. One might argue that he doesn't need space to exist, except for the above notion of incorporeality. He necessary must exist within space, thus Space (like time) predates God.

Jealousy - This attribute seems pretty solidly attested.

Love - A loving God would not create a perfect son for himself, only to make that son die horribly. A loving God would not create something from which to save people. All healthy definitions of love do not rely on obedience.

Mission - I have little to comment on here.

Mystery - I question if mankind will ever totally understand any given thing.

Omnipotence - See the omnipotence problems above.

Omnipresence - For God to occupy all physical space, God must BE all that exists. Nothing else has the physical properties to be everywhere at once. However, not all matter is aware of its existence or presence, or of the existence/presence of all matter.

 

[5elementsage]

I'll start with this one perspective given to me by someone I'll nickname "Phoenix." Which is to use an Archangel as the Boss of Heaven instead. Whatever god or demiurge created everything is absent, so the final enemy to defeat when mankind invades Heaven is not omnipotent or perfect by any stretch.

A person I'll nickname "Santa" suggested that, according to a certain scripture, God's weakness is being baited into tormenting those most loyal to him, by those least loyal to him. So apparently, this being can be manipulated.

A person I'll nickname "Thinker" stated that spiritual beings lack the sufficient weaknesses to be fought and defeated in a mortal fashion, but nickname "Apex" countered by saying there is scripture in which Angels have been physically wrestled. Not defeated, but still.

A person I'll nickname "Notacrook" thinks God can only be defeated when he allows himself to be defeated, to which many people countered that there are plenty of gods that are fallible. Notacrook rejects this on the grounds that those are very different gods than the monotheistic example.

A person I'll nickname "Neon" says the best way to defeat an omnipotent being is to convince them of the error of their ways.

 

[CoreBrute]

Just to be clear, you are stating your intent is to devise a way to defeat the Abrahamic interpretation of God, correct? Because a lot of your statements on the traits of said God matches the description of said god more than something like Zeus or Buddha or even Brahman.

advocates the government-sanctioned slaughter of those who have sex out of wedlock, those who have sex with the same sex, and those who work on the holy day

Click to shrink...

I feel in that case the best way to determine a way to defeat such a being is to look in the original source material, or in this case 'The Text'. Using the bible as an example, the only time God was challenged was in a war with Lucifer Morningstar and the rebelling angels. Given such a significant number of angels turned against God, they must have believed the fight was not futile, which means Lucifer had a theoretical way to defeat, if not kill, God.

Which means either humanity would need to research what method Lucifer was initially planning to use, or make contact/ally with Lucifer himself to reattempt this method. It's very likely a right hand man like Lucifer, or an equivalent, would be the most likely being to know a way to defeat God.

 

[Chopak]

Just to be clear, you are stating your intent is to devise a way to defeat the Abrahamic interpretation of God, correct? Because a lot of your statements on the traits of said God matches the description of said god more than something like Zeus or Buddha or even Brahman.

Click to shrink...

Polytheism does not go well with omnipotency. You run into even more logical conundrums. And the "war against Heaven" trope usualy goes with Abrahamic religion based God, Heaven and Hell.

 

[We Just Write]

Counterpoint: if God did exist and was behind the writing of the Text, then they would have every motive to distort such to appear more beneficial and powerful than they actually are. Therefore, the Text must be analyzed as a work of self-serving propaganda, with the possibility of any given passage being a fabrication constructed for political ends.

It is entirely likely that 'god' is far less powerful than claimed, and might even already be dead by the present day, assuming they weren't a totally fictional being invented to justify the existence of the clergy as a soceital organ.

 

[5elementsage]

Just to be clear, you are stating your intent is to devise a way to defeat the Abrahamic interpretation of God, correct? Because a lot of your statements on the traits of said God matches the description of said god more than something like Zeus or Buddha or even Brahman.



I feel in that case the best way to determine a way to defeat such a being is to look in the original source material, or in this case 'The Text'. Using the bible as an example, the only time God was challenged was in a war with Lucifer Morningstar and the rebelling angels. Given such a significant number of angels turned against God, they must have believed the fight was not futile, which means Lucifer had a theoretical way to defeat, if not kill, God.

Which means either humanity would need to research what method Lucifer was initially planning to use, or make contact/ally with Lucifer himself to reattempt this method. It's very likely a right hand man like Lucifer, or an equivalent, would be the most likely being to know a way to defeat God.

Click to shrink...

Yes, this is based largely upon the Abrahamic gestalt, but once we establish a foundation, it can be expanded to any other omnipotent being with minor alterations. Zeus is patently not omnipotent, and I'm not sure the Buddha is either. Brahman might be closer to what we're after, but I'm not very familiar.

Tactically, basing one's strategy on the failure of someone else is poor logic, but as Lucifer's assault is the only one on precedent that I'm aware of, it's worth integrating in some way.

Polytheism does not go well with omnipotency. You run into even more logical conundrums. And the "war against Heaven" trope usualy goes with Abrahamic religion based God, Heaven and Hell.

Click to shrink...

This is true. Zeus, Odin, and similar beings have been defeated in various ways, though perhaps not killed per se. What we're trying to do is devise a means by which an omnipotent monotheist deity can be laid low.

Counterpoint: if God did exist and was behind the writing of the Text, then they would have every motive to distort such to appear more beneficial and powerful than they actually are. Therefore, the Text must be analyzed as a work of self-serving propaganda, with the possibility of any given passage being a fabrication constructed for political ends.

It is entirely likely that 'god' is far less powerful than claimed, and might even already be dead by the present day, assuming they weren't a totally fictional being invented to justify the existence of the clergy as a soceital organ.

Click to shrink...

THIS! THIS! The only real source we have to describe this being's attributes is a book allegedly written by that being himself, and more literally written by this being's worshipers. Odds of it being reliable are low, especially since this being claims to be the font of truth.

 

[We Just Write]

THIS! THIS! The only real source we have to describe this being's attributes is a book allegedly written by that being himself, and more literally written by this being's worshipers. Odds of it being reliable are low, especially since this being claims to be the font of truth.

Click to shrink...

On a related note, there's also significant evidence that Jesus Christ was made up by the Romans.

 

[Lord Marshal]

THIS! THIS! The only real source we have to describe this being's attributes is a book allegedly written by that being himself, and more literally written by this being's worshipers. Odds of it being reliable are low, especially since this being claims to be the font of truth.

Click to shrink...

No offence, but if the answer to "Can we defeat X" is "X isn't really X, is Y that fakes being X"...well,you see the problem.
If i ask if i can defeat Dracula, and then say "Well,Dracula is probably fake, so of course i can", then i didn't really defeat Dracula

 

[Mak Taru]

IMO you would need something beyond the existence of that god, which predated its creation and was outside of its influence. The problem is that nothing like that may exist.

 

[5elementsage]

No offence, but if the answer to "Can we defeat X" is "X isn't really X, is Y that fakes being X"...well,you see the problem.
If i ask if i can defeat Dracula, and then say "Well,Dracula is probably fake, so of course i can", then i didn't really defeat Dracula

Click to shrink...

That's why I'm only embracing that to a limited extent. Basically, we cannot take the deity's scripture as infallible, and must take the being's claimed traits with a grain of salt, because our only source of information is a highly biased autobiography. For example, if the god claims to be omnipotent, I'm not saying they're powerless. Only that they are likely not "all-powerful" even if they are very powerful. Same goes for omniscient (probably knows a lot) and omnipresent (may be able to bilocate/trilocate/etc. and may be clairvoyant to some extent). Basically, take what is presented and remove what appears to be exaggerations.

IMO you would need something beyond the existence of that god, which predated its creation and was outside of its influence. The problem is that nothing like that may exist.

Click to shrink...

That is not necessarily true. A human being can kill a grizzly bear, despite the fact that grizzlies can kill humans and can shrug off knives, bullets, etc. It is very possible that there exists some way to exploit this deity and take them down a notch.

 

[CoreBrute]

That's why I'm only embracing that to a limited extent. Basically, we cannot take the deity's scripture as infallible, and must take the being's claimed traits with a grain of salt, because our only source of information is a highly biased autobiography. For example, if the god claims to be omnipotent, I'm not saying they're powerless. Only that they are likely not "all-powerful" even if they are very powerful. Same goes for omniscient (probably knows a lot) and omnipresent (may be able to bilocate/trilocate/etc. and may be clairvoyant to some extent). Basically, take what is presented and remove what appears to be exaggerations.



That is not necessarily true. A human being can kill a grizzly bear, despite the fact that grizzlies can kill humans and can shrug off knives, bullets, etc. It is very possible that there exists some way to exploit this deity and take them down a notch.

Click to shrink...

Sure there might be, but if we cannot trust our only source about the deity/being, how are we supposed to figure that out without being turned into pillars of salt for our hubris?

 

[Telamon]

On a related note, there's also significant evidence that Jesus Christ was made up by the Romans.

Click to shrink...

This 'evidence' is, charitably, historical hogwash. All credible historical analysis points towards there being a Jewish rabbi who lived in the Holy Land two thousand years ago, because there were a lot of Jewish rabbis in the holy land two thousand years ago. Anything else is pseudoscientific claptrap with little to no historical support.

 

[Mak Taru]

That's why I'm only embracing that to a limited extent. Basically, we cannot take the deity's scripture as infallible, and must take the being's claimed traits with a grain of salt, because our only source of information is a highly biased autobiography. For example, if the god claims to be omnipotent, I'm not saying they're powerless. Only that they are likely not "all-powerful" even if they are very powerful. Same goes for omniscient (probably knows a lot) and omnipresent (may be able to bilocate/trilocate/etc. and may be clairvoyant to some extent). Basically, take what is presented and remove what appears to be exaggerations.



That is not necessarily true. A human being can kill a grizzly bear, despite the fact that grizzlies can kill humans and can shrug off knives, bullets, etc. It is very possible that there exists some way to exploit this deity and take them down a notch.

Click to shrink...

Well let's look at 'The Presence', the supposedly supreme being from the DC/Vertigo continuity. Compared to most other 'omnipotents' in fiction, he's shown to have quite a lot of setbacks and weaknesses. Just off the top of my head:

- It has/had a dark side known as the 'Great Evil Beast' which embodied all of its negative aspects, and was equally powerful. They ended up merging together, although the Great Evil Beast still exists as a dimension near Hell called the 'Sunless Sea' and its power can be drawn on and used to a limited extent.
- At one point, a cosmic vampire somehow hijacked the 'compassionate' part of the Presence's spirit, and it was explained that without that part, all that was left was wrath, and if the spirit wasn't returned, the Presence would end up destroying his own creation.
- When Swamp Thing nearly acquired all of the fundamental elemental powers that govern reality, it was implied that he could have replaced the Presence if he had fully mastered those powers.
- The Presence told Lucifer that he was created by 'forces external to himself' and Lucifer knows what they are. Writer Mike Carey later clarified in an interview that he was referring to the ability of the collective unconsciousness of beings to change reality, as shown in Sandman when the dreams of 1000 housecats were able to change the universe so that cats ruled over humans. (The Endless were unaffected by this, and they are far below the Presence, so you would supposedly need a much greater subconscious force to overthrow him).
- Elaine Belloc, a half-human daughter of the archangel Michael Demiurgos, inherited the power to replace the Presence and become the new God, although it was implied that the Presence intended for this to happen.
- It's strongly implied that the Primal Monitor/Monitor-Mind the Overvoid (or whatever it's called) is a true supreme being predating and existing beyond the Presence. This would fall under the category I mentioned in my earlier post.

So, using all of this information, how would you go about defeating The Presence?

 

[5elementsage]

Sure there might be, but if we cannot trust our only source about the deity/being, how are we supposed to figure that out without being turned into pillars of salt for our hubris?

Click to shrink...

Well, there are three popular arguments. Reduction, Rejection, and Power Scaling.

Reduction suggests what I did before, that we accept elements of what is claimed about the deity, but not the extent. For example, if he is powerful and knowledgeable, then we'll allow him that, but NOT omnipotence nor omniscience. From there, we can apply critical analysis to determine a ceiling for how powerful, ignoring any claims of omnipotence, and what he knows, ignoring any claims of being all-knowing.

Rejection says that, since we can't trust the only source claiming his qualities, he must not exist as a self-stated being. That's not the end, though, because there are creations that we could discuss, such as a metaphysical construct based on belief, or some kind of tulpa/thoughtform on a grand scale. I'd be willing to stoke discussion on both.

Power Scaling involves neither Reduction nor Rejection until they become necessary. In the VS Battles community, it is common practice to reject any being's self-stated claim that they are all-powerful. Instead, their feats are used to ascertain what they are capable of. We could look at the creation event, at various forms of divine intervention, and at the abilities of angels (who MIGHT be more powerful than him in certain respects, as a railgun or bladed robot arm is more deadly than a base human, and a crane can lift what no practical amount of humans can). In particular, the deity has two claims I am aware of that extend beyond the scope of Earth. They are, however, of relatively little use due to their inaccurate understanding of physics. For example, implications of geocentrism, and stars falling from Heaven. If a star moved close enough to Earth, all life would be destroyed along with the hydrosphere and atmosphere. If a star impacted Earth, there would be no Earth left, because the star would be many times more massive and likely burn up Earth before a star got close.

So either a) the star refers to something not a physical star, or b) that feat is ignorant boasting and cannot be relied upon.

Well let's look at 'The Presence', the supposedly supreme being from the DC/Vertigo continuity. Compared to most other 'omnipotents' in fiction, he's shown to have quite a lot of setbacks and weaknesses. Just off the top of my head:

- It has/had a dark side known as the 'Great Evil Beast' which embodied all of its negative aspects, and was equally powerful. They ended up merging together, although the Great Evil Beast still exists as a dimension near Hell called the 'Sunless Sea' and its power can be drawn on and used to a limited extent.
- At one point, a cosmic vampire somehow hijacked the 'compassionate' part of the Presence's spirit, and it was explained that without that part, all that was left was wrath, and if the spirit wasn't returned, the Presence would end up destroying his own creation.
- When Swamp Thing nearly acquired all of the fundamental elemental powers that govern reality, it was implied that he could have replaced the Presence if he had fully mastered those powers.
- The Presence told Lucifer that he was created by 'forces external to himself' and Lucifer knows what they are. Writer Mike Carey later clarified in an interview that he was referring to the ability of the collective unconsciousness of beings to change reality, as shown in Sandman when the dreams of 1000 housecats were able to change the universe so that cats ruled over humans. (The Endless were unaffected by this, and they are far below the Presence, so you would supposedly need a much greater subconscious force to overthrow him).
- Elaine Belloc, a half-human daughter of the archangel Michael Demiurgos, inherited the power to replace the Presence and become the new God, although it was implied that the Presence intended for this to happen.
- It's strongly implied that the Primal Monitor/Monitor-Mind the Overvoid (or whatever it's called) is a true supreme being predating and existing beyond the Presence. This would fall under the category I mentioned in my earlier post.

So, using all of this information, how would you go about defeating The Presence?

Click to shrink...

I'll let this go a certain distance and see where it goes, but I don't want to distract from the core topic. This is not a DC Comics analysis where we try and defeat the Presence, it is something broader. Here's how I feel this information might relate:

Item 1: The Demiurge.
There are religious fields that assume the original creator is no longer around, and the current omnipotent ruler is a malign, even evil being. There are also fields that state the omnipotent omnibenevolent ("God") and the original creator are two different people, that some evil-god-like being called the Demiurge created everything. So one might be able to find a being capable of defeating our target, but said being is a problem in their own right.

Item 2: Cosmic Vampires
What kind of beings can we find in mythology or even non-DC fiction that presents the way this CV you're referring to does? I'm not thinking of any at the moment.

Item 3: Swamp Thing
The person known as Swamp Thing was once human. The formula invented by him and his wife was dispersed by a bomb, drenching his body and affecting the swamp around him. The swamp was given his consciousness and memories, and rose up as a new creature. Having since become a representative of the Earth element and protector of the planet, it is weirdly logical that gaining control of the other elements would grant him greater power which, when mastered, would make him far more than just Earth's guardian. My question is: what sort of being exists outside of DC Comics that could represent these qualities: an elemental guardian capable of subsuming the divine by mastering the forces of nature?

Item 4: The Metaverse
It is distinctly possible that the current understanding of the deity exists as a construct of all human minds working in concert -- those who believe in him granting him energy, and those who disbelieve providing him the structure of limits. Those who aren't aware of his concept in any form would be the only ones not contributing in some way. I'd be very happy to discuss this as a possibility.

 

[Mak Taru]

I'll let this go a certain distance and see where it goes, but I don't want to distract from the core topic. This is not a DC Comics analysis where we try and defeat the Presence, it is something broader. Here's how I feel this information might relate:

Click to shrink...

It was just an example, in order to test out some of your theories with a deity that we have more concrete information on.

Item 1: The Demiurge.
There are religious fields that assume the original creator is no longer around, and the current omnipotent ruler is a malign, even evil being. There are also fields that state the omnipotent omnibenevolent ("God") and the original creator are two different people, that some evil-god-like being called the Demiurge created everything. So one might be able to find a being capable of defeating our target, but said being is a problem in their own right.

Item 2: Cosmic Vampires
What kind of beings can we find in mythology or even non-DC fiction that presents the way this CV you're referring to does? I'm not thinking of any at the moment.

Item 3: Swamp Thing
The person known as Swamp Thing was once human. The formula invented by him and his wife was dispersed by a bomb, drenching his body and affecting the swamp around him. The swamp was given his consciousness and memories, and rose up as a new creature. Having since become a representative of the Earth element and protector of the planet, it is weirdly logical that gaining control of the other elements would grant him greater power which, when mastered, would make him far more than just Earth's guardian. My question is: what sort of being exists outside of DC Comics that could represent these qualities: an elemental guardian capable of subsuming the divine by mastering the forces of nature?

Item 4: The Metaverse
It is distinctly possible that the current understanding of the deity exists as a construct of all human minds working in concert -- those who believe in him granting him energy, and those who disbelieve providing him the structure of limits. Those who aren't aware of his concept in any form would be the only ones not contributing in some way. I'd be very happy to discuss this as a possibility.

Click to shrink...

Keep in mind for point 4 that not only human minds are relevant here. The minds of non-humans, even animals, contribute to this subconscious reality.

 

[5elementsage]

Keep in mind for point 4 that not only human minds are relevant here. The minds of non-humans, even animals, contribute to this subconscious reality.

Click to shrink...

In certain worlds, this might be more valuable than others, but in our world, there's no demonstration that any non-human animals believe in one or more deities, or even have such a concept. Beyond animals, do you have any non-humans for us to analyze? Again, this would be outside the scope of DC.

 

[Mak Taru]

In certain worlds, this might be more valuable than others, but in our world, there's no demonstration that any non-human animals believe in one or more deities, or even have such a concept. Beyond animals, do you have any non-humans for us to analyze? Again, this would be outside the scope of DC.

Click to shrink...

Well can you really expect the universe to be completely empty except for us?

If you're positing the existence of deities in the real world, aliens seem at least as likely.

 

[5elementsage]

Well can you really expect the universe to be completely empty except for us?

If you're positing the existence of deities in the real world, aliens seem at least as likely.

Click to shrink...

Hypothetically, no, there's probably others out there. Or maybe even on the planet. But what's that old saying about not factoring in unknowns when strategizing? The American government probably doesn't have a plan for if Firebenders attack, or if a fantasy Lich appears with his giant mountain castle dungeon and league of end-game boss NPCs. Having a plan for Greys or the Borg would actually be more sensible.

That's why I'm allowing for pulling from non-DC universes to answer DC related questions. Can you think of solutions at least two universes share that we might feasibly be able to use one day?

 

[Bassoe]

Infohazards. Omnipotence means automatic infection.

Note: Containment Protocol ZK-001-Alpha carries a non-zero risk of creating a ZK Reality Failure event. Use should only be authorized in an attempt to mitigate an end-of-the-world scenario or the imminent destruction of the Foundation.
Research at Site-001-Gamma has conducted narrative analysis on SCP-001's changes to the observable universe. Conclusions are that SCP-001 consists of multiple entities showing cognitive patterns that are indistinguishable from human, and that these entities are therefore susceptible to memetic effects. Since prior experiments have shown information feedback via the SCP data warehouse, a possible method of attack and or control has been developed. Protocol ZK-001-Alpha, when initiated, will cause a software viral insertion of a variety of memetic agents into the SCP database which, through the observed information feedback, should expose SCP-001 to the memetic effects of these agents. Protocol ZK-001-Alpha consists of three stages:

• Memetic agents inserted to promote calm and/or well-being
• Memetic agents inserted to promote sleep, unconsciousness or catatonia.
• Memetic agents inserted to cause death.

Given the nature of SCP-001 and our limited interaction with it, it is not possible at this time to safely test Protocol ZK-001-Alpha, and it is unknown if the universe can continue to exist without interaction with SCP-001.

Click to shrink...

 

[OverlordVan]

It depends on which version of God your talking about. Because as it stands "real" God cannot be defeated because God is capable of doing crazy shit, so mysterious we do not know said weaknesses, has no apex thing over said God, and we have no business fighting since God is supposed to be on our side.

Going with text book Mono God there. Otherwise putting us against one written in a story and this subject can be a real can of worms depending on the audience.

 

[Mak Taru]

Infohazards. Omnipotence means automatic infection.

Click to shrink...

That's intended to work against human writers though, not a god.

It depends on which version of God your talking about. Because as it stands "real" God cannot be defeated because God is capable of doing crazy shit, so mysterious we do not know said weaknesses, has no apex thing over said God, and we have no business fighting since God is supposed to be on our side.

Going with text book Mono God there. Otherwise putting us against one written in a story and this subject can be a real can of worms depending on the audience.

Click to shrink...

The thing is if there is a god with an existence and abilities beyond our comprehension, there's no reason why there can't be a god which is similarly beyond that god's comprehension.

 

[5elementsage]

It depends on which version of God your talking about. Because as it stands "real" God cannot be defeated because God is capable of doing crazy shit, so mysterious we do not know said weaknesses, has no apex thing over said God, and we have no business fighting since God is supposed to be on our side.

Going with text book Mono God there. Otherwise putting us against one written in a story and this subject can be a real can of worms depending on the audience.

Click to shrink...

My answer to these points, itemized:

Item 1: The Deity Cannot Be Defeated
No existing entity that I am aware of is completely invincible. So unlike Gandalf, Superman, and Agent Smith, we will be relying upon the closest proximity to what is available to us in reality. Organisms can be killed. Pathogens can be starved. Forests can be razed. Landmasses can be glassed or even sunk by weapons of enormous scale. Hypothetically, a weapon could be engineered that could wipe out a planet, and it is not beyond possibility for a distant descendant of modern mankind to orchestrate the death of a star. Anything can be destroyed, even an idea if you know what you're doing. So I am rejecting any claims by any source that "The Deity" cannot lose, cannot be defeated, etc. Organic death is a simple thing, and it is distinctly possible the deity cannot die. After all, neither can rocks or nebulae. Math books can't die. If the deity is not something organic, the deity will have to be destroyed by means other than organic death.

Item 2: The Deity Is Capable of X
Any claim that the Deity can "do anything" or "can do all kinds of things" will be rejected. Specific feats like opening up the earth, causing volcanic eruptions, or creating a typhoon are acceptable, calculable, and something that can be prepared for and planned against. We will discuss such feats individually.

Item 3: The Deity Is Mysterious
That is a cop-out. If things can be known about this deity, or even said about the deity, that mystery has hard limits. Saying the deity is mysterious is shorthand for "he's too big and cool and powerful and wise for you to do anything about." Which until proven is a logical fallacy and irrelevant to discussion.

Item 4: There Is No Apex Over The Deity
That remains to be seen. Right now, the only claim to that effect is in the book that people claim this deity authored. I can write a thousand books proclaiming my invincibility, and that doesn't make it so. In the earliest recorded religion, one that predates any historic record of Judaism, the chief of their pantheon had a father, a grandfather, and a great grandfather who all governed higher domains. The oldest and arguably most powerful being, Tiamat, could still be bested through direct combat or trickery. As Sumerian religion is likely the basis of all known religions to date, that stands as a pretty good indicator of any deity's fallibility. To that point, the original figure that became characterized by the Hebrews as their monotheistic deity can be historically traced back to accounts in Seir, Edom, Paran, and Teman, of a divine warrior who moved with their armies. The oldest occurrence we have on record that attests to the name of this deity, describes him as being of the Shasu, nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia. So he didn't even rank on the main pantheon of the time, the Canaanite gods. Accounts of him have been greatly inflated since, but this "great" and yet definitely beatable warrior is likely who we're dealing with in some form. I mean, there's descriptions of the guy being routed by iron chariots. Tanks and ICBMs way outstrip chariots. In every way.

Item 5: The Deity Is On Our Side
That is highly arguable, and in most perspectives false. His attested jealousy and vindictive wrath are most frequently directed at his "chosen people," so you know being his favorite does you no favors, and he is described raging against basically every culture he came across at some point. In the modern day, those favoring him are pitted against the other Abrahamic religions, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and every form of pagan. He is demonstrably on very few peoples' sides, and even when he is, that's not a thing to covet.

 

[Mak Taru]

So what exactly are you even talking about here: The god of the Bible, the gods of Sumerian mythology, or some guy who died thousands of years ago?

It's really hard to brainstorm ways to defeat something if you can't even properly define what it is. That's why I suggested starting with more concrete examples.