Gods different from other superpowered beings

In world-building or virtually any fantasy or sci-fi setting how would you draw a line between gods who are meant to be actual "gods" and other supwerpowered beings/advanced aliens who are godlike?

Star Trek: The Original Series went around debunking godlike beings. Star Trek: The Next Generation came around and introduced Q who was supposed to be all-powerful...but in no way a god. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine explored the topic and the closest I can figure is a god is perspective. The Prophets were real gods because they fulfilled that role in Bajoran culture, but were only wormhole aliens to everyone else. Yet their supposed "godhood" was treated as being more truthful than the Changlings/Founders of the Dominion.

You then have fantasy universes like comics where gods may be powerful, but there are a slew of other beings as powerful as more so. Supernatural has the pagan gods who do not come across as godlike or any real difference between them and the standard monster. Angels come across closer to real gods. In some comics like Marvel Comics the gods sometimes come off as a specific type of being with the attributes of a god and in other stories they do not.

Do you bases on power alone? If a being or group of beings has specific attributes? Say two beings may have the same basic powers, but one is "science-based" and the other is "magic-based?" Metaphysical or spiritual connection to their worshippers? Ability to hear prayers (not necessarily a form of telepathy) or control of an afterlife realm? Some combination?

Where do you draw the line so you can have a character from being reasonably skeptical to being in flat out denial? That someone claiming to be a god is not deluded or prideful? That someone viewing someone else as a god is not being ignorant or stupid?

thanks

edited 2nd Sep '15 10:49:10 AM by seekquaze1

I would say the difference lays in how much we know of being's background.

When it comes to all-powerful alien creature, it has species of some sort, gadgets that can be chalked up to sufficiently advanced technology, a home planet. Even though its acts may appear magical, there is some sort of hypothesis or explanation for this - ex. its species mastered Reality Warping engine, or they have Ascended to a Higher Plane of Existence, whatever.

God, on the other hand, lacks this. It's powers are not identical to that of other gods, its point of origin cannot be pinpointed to one place at one time (or can... to Earth in times humans were already inhabited it) and what it does breaks (or bends) the rules of the 'verse in a way no sufficiently advanced technology will let you. The origin of deity is more mystical, while the origin of alien is more... physical, so to put it.

I think the 'verse you may want to look for is Warhammer 40,000, as it has both aliens and gods. Compare the Old Ones and the Chaos Gods. The Old Ones are known to be aliens who had Ascended to a Higher Plane of Existence and proceeded to create a bunch of species. The Chaos Gods, on the other hand, were born of human emotions somewhere in the Warp and have power to literally bend reality to their wish and create daemons, not to mention this whole corruption deal.^note I may be simplifying this a bit. Like, a big bit. Not sure if I'm explaining this right, but there's a difference.

edited 2nd Sep '15 11:10:58 AM by Kakai

I draw the line at the ability to interact with the god. If you can interact with them in any meaningful way, they're a superpowered being. If you can't (besides, y'know, faith), then they're a god that isn't a superpowered being.

(Frankly, I think the mistake here is that you're drawing from western sf examples only, where that distinction as it relates to the Abrahamic God is never even brought up!)

Thanks for the response.

When it comes to all-powerful alien creature, it has species of some sort, gadgets that can be chalked up to sufficiently advanced technology, a home planet. Even though its acts may appear magical, there is some sort of hypothesis or explanation for this - ex. its species mastered Reality Warping engine, or they have Ascended to a Higher Plane of Existence, whatever.

How would you apply this to a being like the Q who do not rely on any advanced tech or...at least according to some sources have always been or at least did not evolve like other races? Would the Q continuum itself be that different from the idea of gods living in their own realm?

God, on the other hand, lacks this. It's powers are not identical to that of other gods, its point of origin cannot be pinpointed to one place at one time (or can... to Earth in times humans were already inhabited it) and what it does breaks (or bends) the rules of the 'verse in a way no sufficiently advanced technology will let you. The origin of deity is more mystical, while the origin of alien is more... physical, so to put it.

How would this apply to a group of beings like the [1] Greek gods who tend to be recognized more as "gods" in popular culture since there is some overlap in their abilities and their origin and home can (depending on the story) be pinpointed?

I think the 'verse you may want to look for is Warhammer 40,000, as it has both aliens and gods. Compare the Old Ones and the Chaos Gods. The Old Ones are known to be aliens who had Ascended to a Higher Plane of Existence and proceeded to create a bunch of species. The Chaos Gods, on the other hand, were born of human emotions somewhere in the Warp and have power to literally bend reality to their wish and create daemons, not to mention this whole corruption deal.note Not sure if I'm explaining this right, but there's a difference.

Thank you, I will look further into it.

(Frankly, I think the mistake here is that you're drawing from western sf examples only, where that distinction as it relates to the Abrahamic God is never even brought up!)

Would you please elaborate on this? I do not fully understand. I admit I am approaching this mainly from a polytheistic perceptive where the gods were fallible and not all-powerful. To my knowledge many eastern religions have the same idea...at least to some extent.

edited 2nd Sep '15 11:59:21 AM by seekquaze1

Hmm... This is getting the more complicated a question the more I look at it. I would hold on to theory about gods breaking rules of the 'verse while aliens abiding by them (to some extent, at least). Consider Zeus seducing Leda and having human children with her... as a swan. A sufficiently advanced alien would have to take on a shape of human or use some form of in-vitro (sorry for such an example, it's late here...).

There's also a matter of style. Abrahamic god made the first woman out of man's rib and the universe of Norse deities was set on a giant tree. Meanwhile, Q Continuum could be described as a pocket universe of a kind, adjacent to our own (my details on Star Trek are kind of sketchy).

Another problem is the kind of setting you're aiming for. Star Trek was a sci-fi which, while soft as butter, was nevertheless putting science on a pedestal. Supernatural, on the other hand, has its topic right in its name. One genre will treat its deity-like beings as something to be understood and parsed; the other ascribes the divinity of its beings to the fact that they are, well, divine beings. Thus a character with the same powerset and backstory will be a sufficiently advanced alien in one, but god in the other.

Well, I'm not sure how much or how little I actually need to explain here, but...

Those examples you used are all US shows, yeah? We've got a strong Christian population in the US, so it has to be taken for granted that any god in those shows is not the Judeo-Christian capital-G God and merely a pretender. Doesn't matter how powerful the being, they're not God - and if they're not God, there's no difference between them and any other run-of-the-mill superpowered being.

Now, they had to do this so as to actually get airtime without getting picketed by an ever-decreasing Christian population. You see similar taboos in other countries and cultures about what and who can't be shown at all (or as anything other than all-powerful).

So, the question is, do we talk about this assuming that a God that can't be fully discussed in a story is a superpowered being, or do we talk about this assuming that anything is fair game? It changes the examples we can use.

Hmm... This is getting the more complicated a question the more I look at it. I would hold on to theory about gods breaking rules of the 'verse while aliens abiding by them (to some extent, at least). Consider Zeus seducing Leda and having human children with her... as a swan. A sufficiently advanced alien would have to take on a shape of human or use some form of in-vitro (sorry for such an example, it's late here...).

I think I see where you are going. In a setting where almost anything goes if the story makes it clear something is supposed to be impossible within the setting and a character does it they could rightfully be considered a god in that setting (if referred to as such) and a character that is limited to working within the laws, even if very powerful, would have to work within the natural laws of that setting. Sort of a a "Magic cheats the rules" while "science works within the rules" type of place?

Another problem is the kind of setting you're aiming for. Star Trek was a sci-fi which, while soft as butter, was nevertheless putting science on a pedestal. Supernatural, on the other hand, has its topic right in its name. One genre will treat its deity-like beings as something to be understood and parsed; the other ascribes the divinity of its beings to the fact that they are, well, divine beings. Thus a character with the same powerset and backstory will be a sufficiently advanced alien in one, but god in the other.

From this viewpoint, how do you think a character that lived in a setting where sci-fi and and the supernatural were heavily mixed like in certain comic universes? Would both seemingly contradicting viewpoints be equally correct depending on the commenting characters background and own worldview?

Those examples you used are all US shows, yeah? We've got a strong Christian population in the US, so it has to be taken for granted that any god in those shows is not the Judeo-Christian capital-G God and merely a pretender. Doesn't matter how powerful the being, they're not God - and if they're not God, there's no difference between them and any other run-of-the-mill superpowered being.

No room for both to be considered legitament or equally divine? I can see where one would get that.

So, the question is, do we talk about this assuming that a God that can't be fully discussed in a story is a superpowered being, or do we talk about this assuming that anything is fair game? It changes the examples we can use.

I think I get what you are saying. In the stories I have read or seen the relationship between God and gods is never really brought up. Thanks to the Christian background many shows have the Christian God as the creator and the other gods are kind of there with no explanation of where they came from or got their ideas of godhood. At best God is the only real god. The others are something cooked up by humanity's dreams or have no origin and considers themselves gods. Sometimes they are treated as different from other magical creatures, but a difference is not always shown and it is not clear why they were created in teh first place. Other times, the gods are deluded monsters who tricked early humans into worshipping them.

I was thinking more along the lines of anything is fair game, but raise the question of where an observer or the being in question might truthfully be considered a god in a religious/spiritual sense compare to the former being ignorant/deluded and the being in question being a mere egomaniac.

edited 2nd Sep '15 2:51:54 PM by seekquaze1

It seen this thread boils down to one thing: what it means to be god?

(Which to be fair it sound like a good driving question for a series)

this is not a clear answer(in fact there is a sub-type of atheist around this question: esencial atehism but that is for another topic) greek and nordic gods seen to be super powerfull humans,which is part of why the abramanic god and his somewhat-related cousin Allah are out in whole "alien in god guise" since their are a) very human like b) the description make them easier to sound like aliens, after all is god are just a set of being diferent from us, theya re alien in all but name.

(And yes, there is a double standar where pagan religion can be despite in full strengt, even with error or interpretation but Abrahamic god is out, funny thing is, angel are the exception)

Also there is a lot of question that bring this topic: did gods have other gods on their own? how they saw themselves and other spirits(if their exist in the setting) and so own.

I think(granted this is my atheist bias speaking) that god is a title giving to humanity toward this beings, whatever they deserve or not, depend of the person itself than anything else.

From this viewpoint, how do you think a character that lived in a setting where sci-fi and and the supernatural were heavily mixed like in certain comic universes? Would both seemingly contradicting viewpoints be equally correct depending on the commenting characters background and own worldview?

Objectively speaking, there should be some manner of dividing them. Perhaps the purpose with which the being was born? If it was created/came into existence and only then assumed a position of god to somebody, it's superhuman. If it was "born" as a patron of somebody/thing, it's a god.

Gods can also be considered the Anthropomorphic Personification of things.

In most pagan religions, gods are just superpowered beings who can sometimes defy physics/logic depending on their prominence or the particular pantheon.

Doesn't work ; mortals ascend to godhood all the time in some settings.

IMO the difference is that "regular" superpowered beings tend to have pretty straightforward powers, even when they are Reality Warper, while a god (even a Physical God) would have a more subtle, mystical influence.

In other words, a superhero (for lack of a better general term) would confront The Horde and curb-stomp them somehow ; a god would ward off The Horde by simply being there.

Of course, there is no clear line, and the same being could be called a superhero in one setting and a god in another.

edited 3rd Sep '15 10:21:42 AM by Aetol

in fact there is a sub-type of atheist around this question: esencial atehism

I have never heard of this type of atheism and cannot find it referenced when doing a web search. Without going to far into it would you please provide a brief definition or maybe a link to it.

I think(granted this is my atheist bias speaking) that god is a title giving to humanity toward this beings, whatever they deserve or not, depend of the person itself than anything else.

So from your point of view it is entirely subjective and a person viewing something else as a "god" is neither entirely right or wrong? Or to put it another way, there is no way to have a being that could objectively be called a "god" in any fantasy type universe?

To Everyone

Thank you everyone for your responses.

Well, if you're looking for objectivity...

...hm. Maybe, then, an objective god would have to act objectively? Creator of all, sits back and watches the show?

"Objectively speaking, there should be some manner of dividing"

Usually in fiction there is some category of gods: physical gods(heavly use of pagan mythology like Greek,Egytian,nordic,Aztec,etc) who depending of the setting are ether represation of nature or just a "race" almost like superheroe(which is not surprising since comic have milking that narrative for years)

Abstract gods: more sentinet forces of good,evil,chaos...whatever, sometimes is based about the abrahamic god or pantheistic concept

Elderich abomination: this is of course inspared by lovecraft, usually they are not "gods" just strange thing beyond mortal rasoning but are seen as deity becuase of their power.

Granted this are just a few and sometime get mixed as well.

"So from your point of view it is entirely subjective and a person viewing something else as a "god" is neither entirely right or wrong?"

To quote Lorgar of Warhammer 40.000 "the diference between gods are deamon depend mosly of where you stand" which is hilarious consider the chararter.

Consider he have debate,fight or even war about how and what a god is, you just have to stuck with a definition and ran with it.

Scale and variety. Failing that very little.

A lot of great responses.

An idea struck me and I wanted to throw it out there. In theory, gods are supposed to be able to hear and respond to prayers. Sometimes this is attributed as a form of super-hearing or telepathy. Other stories I have read treated it as something different that can occur regardless of distance which sometimes limits the other two. Or said "god" can only hear the prayers of a true believer. Could something like this be used to distinguish a character meant to be a "god" compare to something else like a powerful vampire or physically powerful scientific being?

thanks

The ability to identify specific invocations of a deity or similar's attention, e.g. prayer. Not common, but I do seem to recall Harry Potter's Voldemort having the ability to know when someone said his name, one of the reasons he is He Who Must Not Be Named.

Really, any justification you care to list for why gods are different from supers is sufficient, so long as it's consistent.

Even if the sole distinguishing feature is the fact that they have improbably large afros. As long as no mere super has ever been able to reproduce said afros, it's all good.

(The Voldemort thing was some special spell, and did not exist before Deathly Hallows. Before that, he was He Who Must Not Be Named only because of the fear his name inspired.)

edited 4th Sep '15 11:31:26 AM by Aetol

It's a really good idea, IMO. Even if you superhumans and gods only with one issue, this one is still excellent, because it fits thematically with deities - responding to prayers is kinda primary responsibility of them, after all. Also, being able to respond to prayers regardless of location of the praying one (and any sort of anti-power shield between god and the praying one) may look less impressive than, say, exploding stars, but this is Reality Warping on really high level, so it implies that the gods are really powerful, only they need prayers for this to work.

Of course, if they're popular deities, then it's a Required Secondary Power to be able to filter all the noise that thousands of people praying would generate in god's head.

edited 4th Sep '15 12:11:11 PM by Kakai

Personally, I would say that "God" or "Goddess" is more of a title than an indicator of species. Like... if there is a water elemental who lives in a desert providing life-sustaining water to the inhabitants of a large city. The inhabitants of that city might be grateful to it for providing this service and make it a point to thank it, throw festivals in it's honor, or ask it's advice on important matters (even if the Priests who interact with the elemental admit that it's judgement is not infallible).

There could be many other water elementals in this world, some of whome are smarter, stronger, or have lived longer and influenced history to a greater extent. However, this particular elemental is important enough to these people that they worship it and declared it a god to show their respect.

It's kind of like being a king. You can be strong and charismatic, but the main indicator of being a king is that people respect and obey you. There can be powerful beings who demand to be called gods, but if they don't have the respect or worship of people then they don't really get the title. Or one could admit that the being is a god due to their followers, but they are not their god and they do not wish to worship them.

edited 4th Sep '15 12:45:29 PM by Cyberry

Here's the thing though: the Abrahamic God is far more complicated in nature than the superpowered assholes that populate most pagan pantheons. God is, by His very nature, a paradox. He is an invisible, intangible presence that permeates all of reality, being both aware of, and in control over, everything that happens in the entire universe. But He is also a tangible, personable being, that listens to the prayers of the faithful, intervenes on behalf of the righteous, and visits punishment upon the wicked.

God's divinity stems from the fact that he can be both those things simultaneously. He could, in fact, make a boulder He could not lift, because He doesn't work on the same level as us puny humans, who must obey logic and causality. His paradoxical nature is what makes Him God. He is the Great Exception to every rule, even the contradictory ones. Especially the contradictory ones.

And that's what makes Him so hard to characterise in Fantasy stories. He is the embodiment of "it's magic, I don't have to explain shit".

edited 4th Sep '15 5:22:24 PM by Tungsten74

Supposing that the god of Abraham's own claims about the extent of his abilities is in any way accurate, which it very well may not be.

What kind of a god would not stand to gain from representing themselves as all-knowing and all-powerful to their followers?

You're treating God as if He obeys the same rules as we do, even after I specifically said that's not the case. He's like light, acting like a wave and a particle, while not really being either. He is transcendent. That's what makes Him divine.

I think the bigger issue is how so many Fantasy writers and readers insist on everything in their stories making pure, logical sense. No-one seems to want to engage with ambiguity or mystery. Everything has to have an answer. Everything has to fit together. Of course a god would seem just like any other super-powered being, if the idea of a god that didn't "follow the rules" was verboten.

I don't even believe the Abrahamic God exists, but I can understand entirely the ephemeral nature of such a being, and why people would believe in it. There's been times in my life when I've felt... something. Just a feeling, deep inside, of something more. Something greater than myself, something ultimate and glorious, that made all the pain and woe of the world seem... not so hard anymore. Something that proved everything would be alright in the end.

And if I had to put a word to that feeling, I'd probably call it God.

edited 5th Sep '15 5:17:46 AM by Tungsten74

It depends much on how you define 'god', since the word referred to a different kind of being depending on the religion. The word generally has several possible definitions.

1. Any being that is worshiped.
2. Anthropomorphic Personification of nature.
3. A truly immortal being.
4. The creator.
5. The singular omniscient and omnipotent being.

Humans such as the pharaohs and emperors were worshiped as gods. The Aesir and Devas were mortal, while the Olympians and Trimurti were immortal. The Abrahamic God is one of the few that fulfills most of the definitions and whose godhood is not dependent on definition #1. So it all depends on which definition you want to use.

edited 5th Sep '15 8:52:05 AM by shiro_okami

Question: From whom do we have the claim that God doesn't obey the same rules that we do?
Answer: God.
Conclusion: The idea that he may be lying is not invalid.

edited 5th Sep '15 1:30:33 PM by Eagal