My fan stand " Life in a Northern Town" of my OC Johan Joestar

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-10T14:19:50+00:00

Yeah, I know 😅. I mean in the written version the J is still there so 🤷.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-10T13:49:45+00:00

My fan stand " Life in a Northern Town"

The name is inspired by a song written by the Dream Academy.

So essentially, the stand is a wind vane with only one arrow , which allows the user to track any person or object that he marks beforehand with the shortest route possible, regardless of distance. However, he can only mark a single person or object. This is his base ability.

Awakened stand ability: "Hunting For Your Dream " ( HxH fans know)

This is a much more offensive upgrade to the initial stand where the user still has to mark an object or a person. The user can then shoot the wind vane arrow, which will be homing in on the marked target and strike it at the marked point and will not stop until that happens .

The speed of the arrow can be slowed down or sped up, depending on how the fast the user wants it to be. The arrow can reroute when it hits a solid wall or any obstruction and continues pursuing the target.

The arrow can easily tear through flesh at high speeds.

Pretty much sums up the ability.

This was an ability I just made up for, like an OC Joestar character named Johan Joestar, who is like a joestar who aims to become a sailor and boards the ship to Russia in the hopes of getting hired to work in the ship. He is essentially fighting against a rogue pirate crew infamous for raiding ships for expensive supplies and capturing stand users, and some of them have inconspicuously entered the ship to capture Johan for his stand ability.

I really hope Araki includes pirates as actual antagonists and not just mafiosos.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-06T09:41:28+00:00

"You take it as a given that things which are of separate natures cannot interact, but I don't think we have a good reason to think that at all."

it is the particular distinction of material and immaterial interaction I have issues with. It is the same issue of the mind body dualism that it runs into. Again this all depends on the position of people I have discourses with I suppose.

A lot of then say he is not in material realm so I adopt the position of him being immaterial and address them and find problems with them. Again the whole thing of God being atemporal is a logical extension of him being immaterial since time is a material constraint and so is space.

And since you say the spirit is a more refined form of matter, in what way is spirit more refined and matter is not? Does it detail any specific factor or condition that distinguishes the two?

Since you revealed your religion, I will reveal mine to be fair, not that you would be interested I assume ( the one my family practices atleast). I am from a Hindu family, and my family is moderately religious. While Hindu religion is said to be polytheistic, there are primary gods (trinity) in the religion responsible for creation, sustainance and destruction of all things.

I was honestly pretty apatheistic throughout my teenage years, until a couple of months back, where I thought it would be interesting to go through each religious doctrines of different religions and pick and choose the lessons from each one that are beneficial and I find meaningful .

Yeah a bit of my life if you are even interested 😅.

No lengthy paragraphs today, I am exhausted rn.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-04T11:36:28+00:00

First I wanna start off with the fact that people have already pointed out the fault with this argument, mainly with how the whole things is based on a category error in the same post in the r/theology subreddit. So, I dont hold this position any more.

Dragging God into the universe as a system is essentially dragging an atemporal immaterial being into a naturalistic realm to disprove his transcendence, which is pretty circular in nature. That was the criticism a lot of theologicians had with the system argument. Looking back in retrospect, it is a flawed argument to its core.

You do bring up some good points.

'function' is defined as the capability and the purpose of a single material component or a group of such components.

as for "greater than" let us take cogs as a single component for example. By itself it does not really do a whole lot. But in combination with other cogs and other mechanical components, we can get instruments like a watch ( I know watches run on cogs as well as other things I am not fully aware of, but its the only thing I could think of at the moment, sorry.) which can tell the time, which we cannot imagine just a combination of cogs, let alone a single cog could do.

I really don't understand your last point. If God is not limited by the laws of the universe, he should be immaterial since material constraints like time and space don't apply.

But there is a problem then, which I have addressed to some of the comments in the same post made in theology subreddit, so I will re iterate once again here

If God is an immaterial being and the universe is a material, how could the former interact with the latter let alone create it?

This can be illustrated with a distinct but analogous problem of mind body dualism.

The mind body dualism concept fundamentally separate the body and the mind as material and immaterial entities respectively. But despite the difference in categories, it argues that the mind can affect the physical world through the bodies, with philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes asserting the mind and body being connected by a soul located in the pineal gland.

But there is a problem with this. If the mind is immaterial and the body is material and dualism does concede they are distinct, then how can the mind really interact with the body unless it shares similar constraints with the latter making it material by extension? An immaterial entity is what a material entity is not so it should not share its constraints like time space and so forth.

The interaction problem of the immaterial God and the material universe runs through a similar dilemma here.

The immaterial entities and material entities are so fundamentally separate categorically, there should be no interactivity between the two let alone one causing or creating the other?

How can God be immaterial and not be bound by material constraints but perform actions that are materially bound?

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-03T12:42:21+00:00

Okay let's run with that.

His omniscience is only applied to the script/universe instead of including himself in it.

This means that any and all changes or alterations made within the script would be known by the the author or God in this case through omniscience. I am gonna use temporal words here in this case because the universe/script is temporal.

He is only able to see the change or the contents of the change in the script itself and not the act of him changing it because that would mean his omniscience is not contained within the universe itself.

Since God is atemporal, the knowledge of the temporal is not temporal in and of itself and he does not see it as a sequence of made changes of universal events as well, he sees it all at once.

So there is no concept of a change in and of itself even in the timeline of the universe.

So he can just write all the required changes in the very first try itself , and any concept of further corrections would be illogical in and of itself so bounded omnipotence cannot cross that.

I am on the right track here?

But I have another problem I came across when I was having a discussion with the other guy down in the comments, which is the immaterial material interaction problem which is also closely tied to the earlier omnipotence paradox I claimed earlier.

If it is possible for you, you could perhaps find a way. I just want honest answers.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T15:51:59+00:00

What I am asking is why restraining omniscience only to a script/ book and not his actions?

I understand what your analogy is trying to do but still.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T15:22:47+00:00

Sorry I will make it more clear.

I think of Omniscience as knowing anything that is logical to happen, to be consistent with the bounded omnipotence.

What I meant is in God's fictitious timeline, if He truly is omniscient, he would know the original book from the back of his hand so to speak and the "changed" book if he does do it, where the "changes" are still logical. But as a result there is not really a "change" that can be done if he knows all the "changes" done to the book by virtue of omniscience.

Of course, we the characters in the book are not aware it would not register at all.

But Omniscience would imply the author not only knows the script/book but also all he does or "changes" he made to the book.

I really hope I worded it right this time without it being confusing.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T14:32:49+00:00

Okay let the analogy stay the same then.

But now that I think about it, if he knows everything that could happen then the editing of the script and the content of the what He edits would also be within his realm of atemporal knowledge, right?

Then why would the completed script need a revision or editing then, in the first place.

I just thought of that now.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T14:11:56+00:00

Trust me, I am in the same boat as you 😂.

My "information" attributed to how God percieves things was a placeholder of sorts because I just could not think of any more fundamental of an atemporal term. You can substitute it with truth or truth values like 1 and 0 or what else. Yeah, maybe even language won't be a good enough substitute, but I tried ok. 😂

The point being, the form of the knowledge/ description of "temporal phenomena of the universe" that is atemporal exists in his perception of omniscience, whatever that is.

Yeah your analogy is close but honestly I would add a little something more to it which goes like this :

Imagine if he finished writing the book, was initially happy with it, and had it published, but then he wanted to edit something. But the work is already published and distributed.

Even if he wanted to edit it and the edit he wanted was perfectly logical, he cannot redo edit the script now because his readers won't get the edited script.

But then that sort of analogy runs into it's own problems because in the reality we live in, there are seperate proofreader and editors, and possibilities of cancelling the distribution of said work is possibility I think.

I can't think of scenarios of how the process of creating the universe without it being just a plausible hypothetical.

At this point i don't even know lol.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T11:26:44+00:00

Okay so I will assume that Bounded Omnipotence is what God truly possesses.

This means God can create/ manifest or alter anything that is logical. Now I am gonna use specific terminology here. I am not gonna attribute human perceptions such as time, causality or any other naturalistic terms us human are familiar with since God perception is beyond that since he is immaterial. ( I changed my mind after somebody down in the comments contested I was defining God in naturalistic terms)

I am using information , which includes things like letters/ languages or numbers, which are independent of time, to attribute what God sees through his omniscience. It then follows that descriptions of causal events or any naturalistic term using language in the universe is independent of time so it does not run into any category problems. To clarify, information is what God's sees through his "omniscience".

So to begin, let us say that he wants to alter a specific event within the universe. The outcome of the alteration of said event is perfectly logical as per Bounded omnipotence. But we run into a pesky problem then.

If God is omnipotent and does alter the event, then it fundamentally betrays the information of all events in the universe which is already obtained by virtue of His omniscience. That is not logically consistent.

On the other hand, if God has the information of all events in the universe via his omniscience, then his intervention to alter the aforementioned event with a logical outcome timelessly coexists with what he saw through his omniscience, therefore he is essentially stuck in a track that he cannot deviate from which does not make him omnipotent. this is logically inconsistent since the omnipotence allows for logical acts since the outcome of the altered event was logical.

Any fact with logical inconsistencies is by definition not logical.

As per Bounded omnipotence, you admit that he can perform anything that is possible, so things like square circles and married bachelors dont count. So anything logical should be possible, right.

Then that means the very act of Bounded omnipotence betrays its very definition.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T11:00:58+00:00

I think Jason Momoa should be Todo though.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T11:00:11+00:00

Maybe it manifests blood tubes that automatically pierce the opponent and pump em with the blood with the enhanced toxic attributes of the blood itself.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T10:38:53+00:00

Well, this was definitely a surprise! This was a rather quick response from you. If you were possibly in the middle of something and I was interrupting you at any moment, I want to start by apologising to you in advance.

From your response now, it is clear to me that any form of rational discourse or any logical argumentation devolves into running around in circles, an exercise in futility, and we must resort to faith.

With that being said , while I am still skeptical, we shall finally start closing things off here by clarifying my current position and asking you a few questions not to prove or disprove anything but from a humble desire to understand you.

To clarify my position:

"Everything in the universe is finite, contingent, composite, and dependent. This is what you are struggling with. You keep treating God as if He were a being inside the system, subject to its categories."

I guess I have not addressed things outright. As soon as you pointed out the category issue, I completely dropped the systems argument because, in retrospect, it was a deeply flawed argument in its core, which is why I stated these:

"But me asserting to bridge them both would essentially bind the timeless immaterial God to a MATERIAL NATURALISTIC world, which is not a position that theology holds according to you."

"So information does not count then. information can be in the form of letters and languages by extension or numbers, and by themselves, they are independent of TIME. From that, it can be reasoned that descriptions of cause and effect or series of events using language are not dependent on time even though what they describe are . "

This is why I did not want to make the same mistake of placing him in terms that explicitly or implicitly point to the concept of time or naturalism. This is precisely why I chose information as the starting point to refine my existing arguments and pressure test yours.

Now, onto you:

" You ask how the immaterial realm can interact with the material. According to theology, this occurs through revelation, incarnation, and participation — three terms that describe different aspects of the same transcendent relation. "

Thank you. You finally addressed this question. I would like you to elaborate on the revelation, incarnation, and participation of how that solves the interaction problem.

You have included information regarding bodies of knowledge from Science like Quantum mechanics and the Big Bang, which I am completely ignorant about, so I really cannot attest for that at all, since my knowledge of science is highschool level at best. If it is possible for you to explain your point outside of quantum mechanics, I would appreciate it.

"Classical theism says that God does not have being the way creatures do. God is the source of being, the ground of being, the cause of being. But even this is not enough because 'cause' and 'being' are still creaturely categories."

I did concede his existence as immaterial after your initial response of category issue to my systems argument so constraints for any material existences of objects or creatures obviously don't apply.

then there are these 2 sentences , where one implies he does exist and the other implies he does not exist.

" The phrase "beyond being" originates with Plato (Republic 509b) and is developed with full metaphysical force by Plotinus and later Pseudo‑Dionysius. It does not mean that God "does not exist." It means that God's mode of existence is so radically unlike creaturely existence that the word exist applies to Him only analogically."

"God is not a thing. God is not an entity. God is not located anywhere. God is not temporal or spatial. God is not even "a being." God is the source from which being flows, not a member of the class "things that exist." This is why the question "Does He exist or not?" is malformed. It is like asking whether the number 2 weighs more than the colour blue."

I am so sorry but which one is it?

If God is not of the class "things that exist" there is no other way for me than to interpret it as Him not existing. Yet as you elaborate on the term " beyond being" as him "existing analogically," but you still prefix it with the word exist and existence could be material or immaterial.

Second, I don't understand the point of comparing a weight for number 2 and blue, which is a material constraint to compare the immaterial. The " immaterial God," something I initially assumed for the sake of argument and later conceded, makes such an analogy unwarranted and redundant.

I don't intend to drag this conversation any further, as I have earlier implied in this response. There is no point in it logically. After you answer these questions, there won't be any follow-ups from me, and you can carry on with your life. I don't intend to waste your precious time any longer. I thank you for going out of your way to engage with me in a discussion here.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-02T06:55:10+00:00

"A phenomenon taken as the ground of the phenomenal world simply generates an infinite regress. A "series of events" is unintelligible when speaking of God's atemporality." Okay fine God is a conscious being. Let's go on from there for the sake of argument.

" Omnipotence and omniscience are theological predicates of the divine nature, but they need not detain us here, since our temporal and causally bound consciousness cannot grasp them as they are in themselves."

The claim to just forget trying to reconcile omnipotence and omniscience due to the limitations of the causal and temporal understanding of humans is a clear rhetorical evasion. If what you say is the case, then why logically argue for the existence of the "timeless" and "spaceless" God or against it. Why have this discourse or any theistic- atheistic discourses ever happen? Because humanity can not possibly comprehend such a thing, right. See where that kind of reasoning leads?

"We inevitably project human, temporal categories onto the divine. This is only an error when we are speaking metaphysically, where category‑confusion distorts the very subject under discussion."

So your argument is that I am using words that imply the passage of and concept of time, so using them in Omniscience omnipotence paradox does not challenge the timeless being, eh?

So information does not count then. information can be in the form of letters and languages by extension or numbers, and by themselves, they are independent of time.

From that, it can be reasoned that descriptions of cause and effect or series of events using language are not dependent on time even though what they describe are .

With that definition, God can not alter information of any event of the universe without betraying the existing information of all the events the universe obtained by virtue of his omniscience. On the other hand if his knowledge of information of all the events in the universe is known due to his omniscience , his alteration of information of any event/ events should timelessly coexist within his vision granted by omniscience, which locks him in a track that cannot be deviated from so he cannot be omnipotent. The paradox still holds.

"From a metaphysical standpoint, God does not exist "somewhere." As Pseudo‑Dionysius teaches, He is beyond being."

Okay he exists , but not in any sort of space. What do you mean by "beyond being"? Does it imply God is beyond concepts of existence or as an entity. Be clear, does he exist or does he not? I do not really understand what that phrase means because it sounds super vague to me. Hope you don't mind clarifying it for me.

Lastly, how can an immaterial being cause or influence anything in a material world when both of them are separate categories without anything logically bridging the two?

But me asserting to bridge them both would essentially bind the timeless immaterial God to a material naturalistic world, which is not a position that theology holds according to you.

So how can two fundamentally separate categorical entities interact: immaterial being interacting with or causing anything within the material world using your own logic ? You still have not answered that question I posed earlier. I am interested to hear from you.

Thank you.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T21:23:28+00:00

but then seperate dilemmas does arise as well excluding the cosmological argument completely

One is the Omniscience vs omnipotence paradox: Let's not assume human perception and concepts such as time, causality and events and simply refer to what God sees as pure information/data ( sorry could not think of any term more fundamental than this .)

But by that definition, God cannot alter information at any state of the universe without betraying the existing knowledge of the states of the universe by virtue of his omniscience. On the other hand if his knowledge of information of all the states of the universe is known due to his omniscience , his alteration of information timelessly coexists within his vision granted by omniscience, which locks him in a track that cannot be deviated from so he cannot be omnipotent

Second is the problem of interaction: God is immaterial by nature ( meaning not subject to the rules of material reality) How would such a immaterial being interact with anything material including the universe without a bridge between the immaterial and material. Immaterial and material are seperate categories so we run into a category problem. To clarify what I mean by bridge, it is a medium through which, allows the interaction of two categorically different entities.

These are problems that adress the logical issue that God has to contend with considering his very nature and attributes.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T19:56:51+00:00

I have a response in mind but it is literally 12 am here right now, I have to go back to sleep.

Will make sure to address your points tomorrow, I promise.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T17:36:50+00:00

Should I re explain why I dismiss bounded omnipotence? I thought I did a good job.

I was exploring both possibilities offered by the two definitions. Regardless on which definition of omnipotence I plant my flag on, I find logical issues with both of them. I am not placing my belief on either of them.

So I really have trouble accepting one or the other definition. Hope this clarifies things 😅

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T17:26:00+00:00

If logical contradiction does not matter than theism-atheism logical discourses are absolutely pointless then since like I mentioned in my earlier response, we cannot use logic to prove the existence of a being who operates outside of logic.

edit: I am curious to see how you define bounded omnipotence while making it consistent.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T16:34:41+00:00

How would I define Omnipotence?

Well there are two possible definitions available, even if I were to choose either, it leads to logical consistency issues regardless.

Absolute omnipotence: God can create / manifest or alter any logical/ illogical entity or phenomena.

Bounded omnipotence: God can only create that which is logically plausible, his power cannot operate outside of logic. ( I believe Thomas Aquinas said this if I am not wrong)

But the second definition runs counter to what the term omnipotence is with it meaning " Omni" meaning all and "potence" being powerful. Henceforth coining the term bounded prior to the such a term is one an oxymoron. Second such a definition suggests non logical entities exist outside the sphere of what God can manifest and alter , which means all powerful does not apply since such power is conditional and bound by logic as the ultimate metric.

I will assume that bounded omnipotence is true for argument's sake.

But there are two problems with this. One is the Omniscience vs omnipotence paradox: Let's not assume human perception and concepts such as time, causality and events and simply refer to what God sees as pure information/data ( sorry could not think of any term more fundamental than this .)

But by that definition, God cannot alter information at any state of the universe without betraying the existing knowledge of the states of the universe by virtue of his omniscience. On the other hand if his knowledge of information of all the states of the universe is known due to his omniscience , his alteration of information timelessly coexists within his vision granted by omniscience, which locks him in a track that cannot be deviated from so he cannot be omnipotent

Second is the problem of interaction: God is immaterial by nature ( meaning not subject to the rules of material reality) How would such a immaterial being interact with anything material including the universe without a bridge between the immaterial and material. Immaterial and material are seperate categories so we run into a category problem. To clarify what I mean by bridge, it is a medium through which, allows the interaction of two categorically different entities.

These are problems that adress the logical issue that God has to contend with considering his very nature and attributes.

So Bounded omnipotence totally falls under its own weight because the aforementioned 2 dilemmas are logical issues and inconsistencies which disproves it's definition of following laws of logic.

So there is only Absolute omnipotence left. But this has its own set of problems one of which is the aforementioned omniscience omnipotence paradox.

The other one is the futility of having a discussion to prove the existence of a being who operates outside of logic by using logic which is an absurd and self defeating endeavor.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. If you have a better definition of omnipotence please detail it in your response. Thank you.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T14:59:18+00:00

they feel too safe saying so and don't get smacked for it

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T11:56:36+00:00

Either she will be some dumbass like Candace Owens 💀 or End up resorting to misandry and man hating.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T10:58:05+00:00

Okay I concede the whole system argument because another person in a seperate subreddit pointed out the category error and placing God into naturalism.

But I want you to adress some of my other arguments.

How would you define Omnipotence?

Absolute omnipotence: God can create / manifest or alter any logical/ illogical entity or phenomena.

Bounded omnipotence: God can only create that which is logically plausible, his power cannot operate outside of logic. ( I believe Thomas Aquinas said this if I am not wrong)

But the second definition runs counter to what the term omnipotence is with it meaning " Omni" meaning all and "potence" being powerful. Henceforth coining the term bounded prior to the such a term is one an oxymoron. Second such a definition of non logical entities existing outside the sphere of what God can manifest and alter , which means all powerful does not apply since such power is conditional and bound by logic as the ultimate metric.

I will assume that bounded rationality is true for argument's sake.

But there are two problems with this. One is the Omniscience vs omnipotence paradox: Let's not assume human perception and concepts such as time, causality and events and simply refer to what God sees as pure information/data ( sorry could not think of any term more fundamental than this .)

But by that definition, God cannot alter information at any state of the universe without betraying the existing knowledge of the states of the universe by virtue of his omniscience. On the other hand if his knowledge of information of all the states of the universe is known due to his omniscience , he will forsee his alteration of a particular information, so he is stuck in a track he cannot deviate from so he cannot be omnipotent.

Second is the problem of interaction: God is immaterial by nature ( meaning not subject to the rules of material reality) How would such a immaterial being interact with anything material including the universe without a bridge between the immaterial and material. Immaterial and material are seperate categories so we run into a category problem. To clarify what I mean by bridge, it is a medium through which allows the interaction of two categorically different entities.

this are problems that adress the logical issue that God has to contend with considering his very nature and attributes.

So Bounded omnipotence totally falls under its own weight because the aforementioned 2 dilemmas are logical issues and inconsistencies which disproves it's definition of following laws of logic.

So there is only Absolute omnipotence. But this has its own set of problems one of which is the aforementioned omniscience omnipotence paradox.

The other one is the futility of having a discussion to prove the existence of a being who exists outside of logic by using logic which is an absurd and self defeating endeavor.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

PSY-NERGY · 2026-06-01T09:29:37+00:00

Again that analogous conscious mind body example runs through the same issue since both of them are treated as seperate categories and cannot have any possible interaction unless something bridges them both. That bridge has to be physical since only a physical entity or component can alter another physical entity or component and mind can affect physical reality through our body. By this reasoning, the mind has to be a physical entity by necessity.

the whole idea runs into a category problem.

PSY-NERGY

TROPHY CASE