Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-38425291-20190212034417/@comment-38564645-20190305014156

DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote:

Nothing says powers cannot have limitations. The fact that you are saying "we can't" is double standards. All you have done was repeated your stance that you think a power can defeat omnipotence. That's Argument by Repetition fallacy, look it up.

I just repeated to grab your attention because you apparently wasn't paying any.

Claiming freedom doesn't mean jack unless it's actually the power Freedom, in which even that is subject to omnipotence. Let me see you jump off a skyscraper and have your 'freedom' save you from gravity. This is the second time you've made an argument without putting any proof behind it. Prove it or lose it. 1. Any soul may claim freedom, if finds it deep within. 2. Freedom can't be subject to omnipotence. It's freedom. It can't be subject to anything. 3. The principle is that you can do anything. Resist an omnipotent being included. Elsewise you're not free. And if you're not free, you can acquire that freedom and then resist an omnipotent being. 4. If you try to define omnipotence as totally being supreme to freedom and other powers, you fail. These already have resistance to anything, and you can't simple wave it away with saying "omnipotence". 5. Interesting enough, any soul in reality has that potential to said freedom. As fiction is similar to reality, there it's true too. It can only be false in "Ended" or "Fake" fictions. Sure all fiction is fake, but that would be double fake if rules are unbendable from the start and there is no sign of "End".

You're literally trying to limit omnipotence to logic despite not refuting my facts on all the other logic based abilities.

Yeah my mistake. Not logically broken. I would say just "Broken"

And your last paragraph does nothing to prove your point at all, smh.

I tried to shake you mind so that you may understand that if existing of such being in a fictional verse is messed up, maybe you'll doubt the supremity of the idea of "Fake" omnipotence.

It is super easy to make an argument against slavery.

Well maybe it's where it differs. It's more difficult to defend my point because it's a more compex subject, but it's not less true. Or maybe it's the same, and the situation with you is like when you present a modern argument against slavery to a slave owner of 19th century.