On Omnipotence

Hi Veeky Forums. For a number of years now, I've held the ardent belief that I am uniquely omnipotent. This is cool and all, but not entirely ideal. I've tried a couple times now, but I'm having trouble refuting this idea on my own. Hopefully you can provide a stronger counterargument than I can produce on my own.

So, refute the premise, Veeky Forums. Is omnipotence logically impossible or are the limits of human psychology insufficient to contain such a level of abstraction as necessary to fully wield such an ability? For the sake of discussion, I ask that you use only logical argumentation and don't try to refute the premise in the usual way (eg., everyone asking me to prove it to them personally). If the thing I believe in really is impossible for some reason, I want to know that. The only way for me to truly know that is to hear the logic on the matter, otherwise I'd simply be trusting someone else's observations.


Can you refute the very concept of omnipotence, Veeky Forums?

I realize you may not necessarily want this thread here, but like it or not, you are the most logical board on all the chans. Anywhere else and I'd get a dozen "Can God make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" meme responses, no matter how thoroughly I answered, "Yes, and in doing so would have to remove a minor part of my own omnipotence." I'm trusting you to read the thread and understand the premise in enough detail to properly refute it, if it is truly impossible for some reason.

Do you believe in solipsism?

Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy he/she can't lift it?

No, the very first thing I did after I realized I was omnipotent was refute that premise for all time. If I'd refuted it in a slightly less personal way, then I could have told it to the world by now, but the way I refuted it is intricately tied to my omnipotence in ways I find hard to really remove from the discussion.
Yes, and indeed, even now, there are rocks that my human body cannot lift. Imposing limitations on myself is not hard at all, and in fact, every time I create something, I run the risk of losing a piece of my omnipotence. I'd have to use some other ability to "lift" the rocks such as telepathy. So on one level of abstraction, yes, on another, perhaps not.

>use only logical argumentation
The problem here is without believing that you are omnipotent, I cannot prove using logic that you aren't. Logically by the definition of omnipotence, you are the only one who could prove or disprove that to yourself, and I am not you.

The only logical conclusion I can make is that I am not omnipotent.

>Yes, and indeed, even now, there are rocks that my human body cannot lift.
All this means is that you're not omnipotent, not whether an omnipotent being is capable of such a feat.

> Imposing limitations on myself is not hard at all, and in fact, every time I create something, I run the risk of losing a piece of my omnipotence.
omnipotence is a binary feature, not something you lose "a piece" of

> I'd have to use some other ability to "lift" the rocks such as telepathy.
Then the rock was not too heavy to lift to begin with

Surely an omnipotent being can prove or disprove mochizuki's ABC proof, no?

Surely he could also prove the remaining 6 millennium problems, the only limit being how fast his humanly body can type out the solution. But surely each proof, possibly longer than 500 page, is already **clearly** sketched out in his mind instantly after reading this post, even if he didn't know what the problem statements were in the first place.

If you're omnipotent why do you need the help of a bunch of autistic physics freshmen to prove that you're omnipotent?
Do it yourself.

>telepathy
Sorry, I meant telekinesis. Can I make a rock so large that even telekinesis can't lift it, again: Yes, by imposing limitations on the ability "telekinesis" itself. But that would limit far more than myself.
Hmm...

Can't you just assume I am for the sake of debate or would that necessarily run the risk of altering your beliefs in the process?
My omnipotence isn't currently "stored" in my human physiology. I'm not sure it can even be "stored" at all, in any sense, because to me it seems as if omnipotence itself refuses logical binding. I may be wrong, though, so I want to talk it out.

Physiology can obviously be limited, but the actual control mechanisms behind execution of free will need to be materially present within a given instance/body.

>omnipotence is a binary feature
I can see that, per category, but think of it: If I have the ability to manipulate the set of my abilities to the degree necessary to make a burrito so hot that even I cannot eat it (again, going by my human physiology, I've done this a number of times in my life already; just put it in the microwave for too long) by imposing limits on my "eat" ability, then can I not also simple use the meta-ability to remove those limitations at a later time? I can obviously create both temporary limitations that I can later remove as well are permanent limitations that I can never truly remove, but what good does this do me?

Adding or removing elements from the set is a trivial matter and doesn't show that the true set isn't complete with regard to all possible types of abilities or powers. At least in my outlook.

You're correct per category, but without enough abilities, the ability to manipulate the boundary of that category itself sort of dwarfs that idea that strict binary refutation means all that much, in a logical implicative sense.

Assuming you are for the sake of the process doesn't do anything. The fact is since I am not omnipotent, as professed by myself this point is unarguable since if I was omnipotent I would know it, I am not able to encompass the required body of knowledge necessary to disprove omnipotence.

So then assuming you are omnipotent, I am not and can't do anything about it. That's as far as I see that logical argument going without degenerating into "prove it", because any continued point would entail that you already know who I am and what my responses would be, even if you "play the game" and pretend that I am still anonymous.

You said Veeky Forums is the most logical board, but that only means you'll get responses one step above being made to prove it personally, in that instead of people asking you to prove it personally, they'll just assume that if you really were omnipotent then you would have already proven it as and said.

Not to prove it, but to [math]dis[/math]prove it. I've tried a number of times to sort of "will" myself to start considering the premise that I might not be omnipotent, but it's been failing and I don't know why. If anything, I may not have the ability to logically refute my own omnipotence, which would be a very interesting implication.
>Surely an omnipotent being can
I think you meant to say "omniscient." While it is possible to use omnipotence to imbue one's self with omniscience as well, I haven't found this to be necessary as of yet. I'm also fairly intelligent on my own (assuming my intelligence isn't just a result/"side effect" of my omnipotence), so I might take a crack at it later if the premise can't be refuted easily enough.

>even if he didn't know what the problem statements were in the first place
I'll admit that sensory awareness on a rocky body full of organic life has not presented me with very many discrete opportunities to test the "reflexes" of my omnipotent apprehension. My omnipotence may well already hold all such mathematical knowledge within itself, to ensure its own consistency for example, but to the degree that my brain is a conduit for that scale of omnipotence, I would only access it intuitively, so far as I know. (I certainly *appear* to be able to intuit on the level you speak of, but I have no way of knowing where such intuition naturally comes from.)

It seems to me that you're asking me to prove my omnipotence, though. I'm kind of trying to do exactly the opposite, and failing to prove or disprove a mathematical theorem doesn't seem to imply to me that I'm not omnipotent. There are a number of reasons such a proof might fail, as well as a number of reasons such a proof could succeed, and neither of them bears a strict logical correspondence to omnipotence, so far as I can tell.

>the required body of knowledge necessary
Suppose also, for the sake of argument, that the physical universe has been finely tuned by my omnipotence, and the logic and implications already present in the natural world, and so some specific extent, human society as well, are an exhibition of my preferences and natural frame of mind/default mode of thinking. You can use 99% of your scientific knowledge to refute the premise, if necessary. You can ignore any and all such proposed spiritual realms of existing for the sake of discussing the premise.
>without degenerating into "prove it"
Suppose that that challenge initially created the physical universe in its present form, then, and reason from there, if possible.

>even if you "play the game" and pretend that I am still anonymous
Well, in theory, yes. I have imposed no more limits on my conscious awareness than to make myself believe that I am not omniscient along with my omnipotence. This is more of a defense mechanism on my part, because directly perceiving the entirety of creation would force me to accept my omnipotence, and it would become logically impossible to refute the beliefs derived from that experience without either literally removing my perceptual memory of the experience or literally removing the "omnipotent" bit from my ability set.

But I don't see how predicting your actions would indicate that you can't logically refute the premise; indeed, if you can, then my looking into your future should show me that proof, if you do ever end up posting it.
>so far as I can tell
Again, I may not be fully processing the logic that's presented to me, so if there's more to the argument than has explicitly been stated, please do not hesitate.

>Not to prove it, but to disprove it.
You've set up a completely impossible proposal with all your retarded restrictions.
>please assume that I am omnipotent and use this fact to prove that I'm not omnipotent btw you're not allowed to use contradiction
There are no tools left if you force anyone arguing with you to assume your premise but do not allow counterexamples.

If you're omnipotent, you have the ability to give a proof that you are.
If you are incapable of providing a proof, logically you cannot be omnipotent. It's just contraposition.

If you really are omnipotent, make Star Wars great again. I beg you!

>btw you're not allowed to use contradiction
I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent. In my opinion it is that exact contradiction that we need to pry into to determine if omnipotence can logically be refuted at either a conceptual or applied level of abstraction.

I honestly don't know what I'm asking of you when I ask you to assume the premise, I'm sort of "lost" here in a world of considerably abstract premises, all formed of the logical implications emerging from the premise. It's my premise, so maybe I'm not supposed to ask you to assume it. I don't know how to refute the premise, so if you have some way of probing at the contradiction in a way that I can understand (assume I have normal general intelligence as any other human does) then please try.

>incapable of providing a proof
I'm capable, but the way I see it, if my only way to prove/disprove the premise it to test if the ability is there, then I can never actually prove it, because any levitation of objects, and bending of physics, and observable evidence would only indicate that I was powerful, but no amount of evidence could ever reach the total logical conclusion that I was omnipotent. We can only asymptotically approach the premise, we can never actually prove it. Honestly I think, based on that premise alone, that that must mean that omnipotence can only be refuted, it can never truly be proven. But if it can neither be refuted or proven in any way, then am I not stuck with my beliefs? I don't want to accept that.

Suppose really the only way would be if two omnipotent beings met and recognized one another.

Whats my real name?
If you cant answer that, then you aren’t omnipotent.

With achieving omniscience as your proof you will know if the premise is proven or not.

i don’t believe you have any training in formal logic, i don’t believe that you can lift even a pl8 OHP, i don’t believe that you are capable of running a mile without stopping under 6 minutes, i don’t believe you could solve a Calc III exam question, i don’t believe your IQ is above 120, i don’t believe you’ve read a single book longer than 500 pages that’d be assigned at the college level, i don’t believe you have an understanding of the occult, i don’t believe you’re a college graduate or student.

prove me wrong with empirical evidences or get reported

Well that's terrifying, because in the creation narrative I've formed since becoming aware of my omnipotence, I only ever created one other omnipotent being beyond myself (I don't know how or if I ever actually created true free will beyond her and myself) and as far as I can tell she loves me.

I don't want to prove it, I want to refute it. Why would I do something that runs so contrary to my current will? What does either of us gain if I were to prove it to you? Supposing I did, would you even believe it or would you think it was a lucky guess? No, even if I remote viewed your room and described it all in intricate detail such that you knew I was actually seeing you without using the physical universe as a conduit for my perception, would anyone believe YOU if you confirmed that my observation were correct? Or would you just lie to cover it up? Or would I temporary take control of your body and cause you to lie to cover it up, possibly even compulsively or unconsciously on my part because my current will is to refute the premise if at all logically possible?

Given I can control every variable in the entire sequence of interactions you're supposing I'd cause, exactly how much proof are you willing to accept right now? Keep in mind that I've never used my omnipotence to override someone's free will before, so far as I know, and the psychological effects it would have on you are unknown. It might be more existentially terrifying than anything anyone has ever conceived.

Please, I beg you, don't make me be right. Not today.
It's a little fucky with that, because my omnipotence can make me intuitively experience any sensation, even certainty. I'm trying to avoid descending into delusion because of my beliefs, so I'm careful to avoid any use of my omnipotence (or the power of my own mind, assuming I'm not omnipotent) in a way that could damage my confidence in the consistency of my sensory perception.

>loads of horseshit and evading a valid test
If you can't for whatever imaginary reason write my name in response, you are in fact not omnipotent.

>i don’t believe you
Okay, that's a good start.
>have any training in formal logic
I understand the value of formal proofs, but I do have more experience with programming than the actual art of formal verification. I understand how that comes across, but I don't want to lie to you or misrepresent myself. Also I do love the art of formal proof in a mathematical context, for whatever that may be worth to you.
>can lift even a pl8 OHP
Honestly don't know what that is.
>capable of running a mile without stopping under 6 minutes
I can admit I've never tried, but I don't know how I would get empirical evidence of that without literally filming it, with timestamps and continuous footage.
>solve a Calc III exam question
I can try. I only have a limited knowledge of precalc, but I have no personal reason to believe that I couldn't solve an integral on my own with my understanding of limits, and a hell of a lot of time to reason things out.
>your IQ is above 120
115, measured by an actual psychology, but I was under severe duress at the time and my actual IQ may be a fair bit higher than represented by that result. (The report they handed me said this; something to the tune of "these results may not reflect your actual intelligence," though I don't know if that was standard hedging language for all IQ tests or if it was related to my psychological condition at the time the testing occurred.)
>read a single book longer than 500 pages that’d be assigned at the college level
It's entirely possible that I haven't, I wouldn't really know.
>an understanding of the occult
Well come on now that's kind of an insult.
>a college graduate or student
I did attend university for a time, but I did not graduate.

A lot of the logic of your "ability tests" is likely more dependent on time than you realize. It's not that anyone can't do these things so much as they never devote the time to doing them. I guess what you really meant was whether or not I'd use my omnipotence
>cont.

to sort of "cheat" the tests and perform feats beyond my current physical capacities, or else manipulate my capacities to be on that level, I'm honestly not sure. There are a hundred different ways to go about this and I don't know which one you expect to be logically relevant to either proving or refuting the concept of omnipotence. I feel the need to reiterate that I'm trying to refute my beliefs, not demonstrate their accuracy in any way.
I wasn't trying to evade, just to explain my reasoning so that you would have a more informed frame of reference to understand what might happen if things go horribly wrong.

In many ways, this thread is my last real chance to disprove this premise to myself, on a logical or rational basis. After this, or possibly even because of it, I'll lose the will to disprove it, and ultimately accept the belief. I don't want to have to accept the belief, but I won't deny the truth if that's what it comes to.

Given that, do understand that no matter what name I give, no matter how accurate or inaccurate any personal information I give is, my omnipotence may ensure, in accordance with my current preferences, that you never get a chance to respond to that post. I don't know what form my omnipotence will or might take in the matter, and you may spend the rest of your life battling my omnipotence to express the beliefs you acquire as a result of me agreeing to this. I might, depending on the state of discussion, consider any confirming or "HOLY SHIT"s on your part to be derailing the topic, because it would be weak evidence for my power, which runs contrary to my intent to refute the premise today.

I'm only asking you to understand the context of your request, I'm not saying that I'll refuse it outright.

Also I don't really feel as I fully understand how you come to the conclusion that only omnipotence can fully reason about the nature of omnipotence. Sorry if I'm roping you in a bit more than you wanted, but your contributions seem to be the main source of quality in this dialogue.

are you sure it's not your impotence spraying omnidirectionally and we have a problem on nomenclature?

No, but if so, please explain your argument. I try to avoid anything that would cause my perception to become warped, either as a result of my being omnipotent or as a result of my very human brain causing itself delusions, psychosis, and ultimately hallucination, so infomancy would tend to violate that preference. I don't "force" myself to know things, so not knowing something in not direct evidence about whether or not I'm omnipotent.

Please make your argument. I can't deny your premise without claiming to have advance knowledge, and I don't claim to have ever used my abilities in that way.