History Analysis / TheOmnipotent

* '''Unconstrained even by logic.''' This is where God can do anything, even things that are [[DoubleThink logically self-contradictory]]. This kind of God could create a stone so heavy he can't lift it and [[MindScrew then lift it anyway while it still genuinely was too heavy for him to lift]]. Such a being would probably be an EldritchAbomination to our perception, which to be fair also can ideally describe the Abrahamic God better than a traditional polytheistic deity such as Zeus orange Odin, and if Rabbinical, Biblical and Quranic sources are any indication, he also ''surpasses'' even the paradoxes presented by the traditional Eldritch Horror. Not to mention, logic and rationality as we know it are still human constructs at the end of the day and a truly omnipotent God would in no way be restrained by the human perceptions he has existed before and longer after. Thus what we determine to be illogical wouldn't matter at all to an omnipotent God. A "milder" version would be where God at least leaves the world to function in its own logic, or got to decide what was going to be logically possible in the world he created, which might or might not mean he can break the rules now; if not, the practical effect would be the same as in the next option.

* '''Unconstrained even by logic.''' This is where God can do anything, even things that are [[DoubleThink logically self-contradictory]]. This kind of God could create a stone so heavy he can't lift it and [[MindScrew then lift it anyway while it still genuinely was too heavy for him to lift]]. Such a being would probably be an EldritchAbomination to our perception, which to be fair also can ideally describe the Abrahamic God better than a traditional polytheistic deity such as Zeus an Odin, and if Rabbinical, Biblical and Quranic sources are any indication, he also ''surpasses'' even the paradoxes presented by the traditional Eldritch Horror. Not to mention, logic and rationality as we know it are still human constructs at the end of the day and a truly omnipotent God would in no way be restrained by the human perceptions he has existed before and longer after. Thus what we determine to be illogical wouldn't matter at all to an omnipotent God. A "milder" version would be where God at least leaves the world to function in its own logic, or got to decide what was going to be logically possible in the world he created, which might or might not mean he can break the rules now; if not, the practical effect would be the same as in the next option.

* '''Not actually omnipotent, but we're saying that anyway.''' This is when limitations like the above are taken so far that God honestly can't do all that much, maybe just vaguely nudge history in a desired direction or something, but is [[InNameOnly called omnipotent anyway because that's part of the traditional definition]], or because the entity in question is so powerful we primitive humans dismiss as Omnipotent (see also ClarkesThirdLaw). Definitely not SuperWeight class 7 any more, and may not even be TheOmnipotent in trope terms. It isn't really until this level that another entity may be imagined as challenging God.

* '''Unconstrained even by logic.''' This is where God can do anything, even things that are [[DoubleThink logically self-contradictory]]. This kind of God could create a stone so heavy he can't lift it and [[MindScrew then lift it anyway while it still genuinely was too heavy for him to lift]]. Such a being would probably be an EldritchAbomination to our perception, which to be fair also can ideally describe the Abrahamic God better than a traditional polytheistic deity such as Zeus an Odin, and if Rabbinical, Biblical and Quranic sources are any indication, he also ''surpasses'' [[UpToEleven even the paradoxes presented by the traditional Eldritch Horror]]. Not to mention, logic and rationality as we know it are still human constructs at the end of the day and a truly omnipotent God would in no way be restrained by the human perceptions he has existed before and longer after. Thus what we determine to be illogical wouldn't matter at all to an omnipotent God. A "milder" version would be where God at least leaves the world to function in its own logic, or got to decide what was going to be logically possible in the world he created, which might or might not mean he can break the rules now; if not, the practical effect would be the same as in the next option.

* '''Unconstrained even by logic.''' This is where God can do anything, even things that are [[DoubleThink logically self-contradictory]]. This kind of God could create a stone so heavy he can't lift it and [[MindScrew then lift it anyway while it still genuinely was too heavy for him to lift]]. Such a being would probably be an EldritchAbomination to our perception. A "milder" version would be where God at least leaves the world to function in its own logic, or got to decide what was going to be logically possible in the world he created, which might or might not mean he can break the rules now; if not, the practical effect would be the same as in the next option.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Some reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or just good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder was good, it would be so. Not surprisingly, the majority reject this view though.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Som reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or just good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder was good, it would be so. Not surprisingly, the majority reject this view though.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Som reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or just good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder was good, it would be. Not surprisingly, the majority reject this view though.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Som reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or just good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder was good, it would be then. Not surprisiingly, the majority reject this view though.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Som reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or just good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder was good, it would be then. Not surprisiingly though, most reject this view.

* Some theologians also apply this idea to morality, as most see God as its source. However, there is a very old question regarding this (going back to {{Creator/Socrates}}) which in modern terms asks: "Are things good because God wills them, or does he will them because they are good?" Som reply that God embodies goodness: his character is wholly good, and thus he cannot will anything evil. Not everyone agrees it answers the question of course, since this can be reframed into "Is God's character good because it's his, or good by definition? In any case, other theologians have that whatever God wills ''is'' good by definition (such as William of Occam, who coined OccamsRazor), so that if he willed that murder wa good, it would be. Not surprisiingly though, most reject this view.

* '''Not actually omnipotent, but we're saying that anyway.''' This is when limitations like the above are taken so far that God honestly can't do all that much, maybe just vaguely nudge history in a desired direction or something, but is [[InNameOnly called omnipotent anyway because that's part of the traditional definition]], or because the entity in question is so powerful we primitive humans dismiss as Omnipotent (see also ClarkesThirdLaw). Definitely not SuperWeight class 7 any more, and may not even be TheOmnipotent in trope terms. It isn't really until this level that another entity may be imagined as challenging God.

* '''Constrained only by logic, but with extra stipulations.''' God can do anything that lacks a contradiction, but some [[MagicAIsMagicA extra limits]] are brought in that aren't immediately obvious just on that basis. For example, it could be said that human free will must be absolutely indeterministic, at most probabilistic[[hottip:*:which is far from obvious, because it would lead to us acting randomly, with the will only rolling dice]], and so God can't both give humans true free will and maintain totalitarian control over what they do and what happens to them, which suddenly leaves quite a lot of things beyond his control. This kind of thing can be done to excuse the imperfection of the world. The stipulation in Christianity that God had to sacrifice Jesus Christ, and/or incarnate as him, to atone humanity also goes on this level. It's not a logical necessity without first stipulating a lot of concepts that imply it. Not to be confused with merely self-imposed limits; God's own will "limiting" itself is a whole other debate not included here because it would make this much more complicated while adding little value.