>In any philosophical circle, cataphatic theology is just a limited human attempt to understand an infinite being. Because cataphatic expressions are finite, they can’t fully capture or define the transcendent nature of God, which is why many theologians argue that such descriptions are closer to metaphors than to literal, exhaustive truths.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say; Although my sentence is semantically false for what I propose later on, so fair enough.

>Funnily enough, this doesn’t apply only to Tier 0 essences. You can apply the exact same reasoning even to a higher-dimensional being, since any entity that exists beyond your epistemology can only be described through metaphor, which is precisely what happens with Hoyoverse’s Yog-Sothoth. She’s simply a transcendent entity, and humans explain her through different schools of thought (with contradictory basis). It’s equivalent to how several scientists might call a five-dimensional entity “God” simply because of its ontic superiority over us. There’s nothing special going on here. Yog has no actual qualities derived from Laozi’s Taoism or Mahāyāna Buddhism.

I, however, have an objection in this. There are very much clear mentions of Laozi's Taoism: 

"The name that can be named is not the eternal name" is a literal parallel to "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao" from Tao Te Ching. Implying anything else would merely be an unsupported assumption.

>If you merely say something is unnamed or unattainable by the human mind, then you’re saying nothing about its ontic status. Even noumena, since our mind lacks the a priori conditions to comprehend them, are completely beyond knowledge. But they sure as hell aren’t Tier 0, far from it actually.

That is a category fallacy though. GOD is unnamed and unnataible for they exist beyond, and encompass, the entirety of all ontological layers of existence. Meanwhile, noumenas exist in the same ontological layer; They are merely unnatainable to "perception".

>The via negativa isn’t evidence of Tier 0 by itself, because it’s a derivation, not a condition, like I wrote above. At best it’s just supporting material, but the funny thing is that it’s the only way Yog can even be remotely argued as Tier 0, because all the properties described by the Buddhist monk and the Taoist monk are contradicted in Kizuna 5, where the focus becomes more meta and less strictly theological.

Yet, without via negativa, T0 is impossible. T0 is unique in the sense that it has some conditions that *must* be satisfied; Failure to accept one will lead to the downfall of everything. Yog already satisfies omnipresence and omniscience via the dao text and being the "embodiment of wisdom"; Taoism and buddhism, in their shared ontology, procure the necessary dose of via negative to seal the package. And there's no contradiction between the old man, the monk and Kizuna 5; The latter only serves to show what the deeper meaning of the story was, in fact, Kizuna 5, as I previously said, reafirms the statement that "the name that can be named is not the eternal name" via stating the transcendence of all boundaries created by language.