Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-30160565-20171230205913/@comment-29564364-20180104024243

TheVoidWalker69 wrote: It's called paraconsistent logic actually.

And then there's this thing called semantics. It's useless to accuse me of making use of paraconsistent logic and misusing semantics if you don't support that claim by demonstrating it, which you have yet to do.

But seriously, do you think any battle forum or any wiki would accept someone as omnipotent if they were shown to be defeated multiple times? I couldn't care less about battle forums and wikis because I don't consider them to have any more authority over the subject than I have. Also, The Presence was shown to have been killed once (though he wasn't really dead and it was just according to keikaku) and he's still accepted as omnipotent by pretty much anyone who's familiar with the subject.

You can claim you're omnipotent. You can be the creator of all. But if you're shown to not be omnipotent, then you're not omnipotent. I already discussed this with DYBAD earlier about how the description/depiction of a confrontation between two omnipotent entities would be impossible, so they can't be shown winning, losing or even fighting against each other. I also said that the conclusion of the hypothetical situation of that fight is not dependent on our capacity to describe/depict it, so what's your point?