Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-30160565-20171230205913/@comment-29564364-20180104214106

TheVoidWalker69 wrote: To me that's the only realistic way you could have that shit work. Then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

"Enters Suggsverse. Lionel Suggs does the same thing as dividing by zero by pitting "omnipotent" characters against each other, except that he arbitrarily decides which outcome he describes, resulting in the massive curbstomps we see throughout his work."

You can't actually seriously be suggesting that Suggsverse is acceptable by any means. Yes, I am and I just showed explained to you my reasoning behind it, so where's the problem?

But my point still remains, how can you possibly claim to be able to do anything if you can't defeat someone else. So maybe you're defying non-contradiction, doesn't change the fact you can't win, and why the hell would they even allow it in the first place? They'd put their omniscience and omniarch to good use and deny that other being's omnipotence. If they can do that that is :) I didn't say that omnipotent beings can't win or lose against each other, I said that they can't be shown fighting in a way that violates the laws of logic. Remember all the times I repeated that the conclusions of hypothetical situations are not dependent on our ability to depict them?