Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-26315879-20190517004034/@comment-38564645-20190617093550

I suggest you two different takes:

1) Omnipotence is usually assumed unbeatable if someone gets it. However you can't get omnipotence if anyone in the universe has absolute immortality for example, because it's absolute. Even if in this wiki absolute immortality can be destroyed by omnipotence, this means that it's just can't be something final. We can define final immortality then which has the same precedence as omnipotence, and then either final immortality or omnipotence can exist in a universe. It would be like this: if a being gets final immortality nobody can have omnipotence and vice versa.

I believe it's not a power. It's more like reign over everything. Because every power has something to resist it. You can't just define a power which precedes over anything else, as another power may be defined that nothing can precede over it. However, even if it's not a power, the being with omnipotence can as well break logic and make it one. This is never talked about. We need very specific rules of the universe to have it given precedence as a power, as why would we give precedence to anything? So in neutral state of mind it shouldn't be a power.

2) Omnipotence can be beaten, no matter the formulation. In this case, how difficult to beat it depends on the "conditions" which the omnipotent being has for interaction with the rest of existence and the totality. For example, creating an equivalent omnipotent being won't give it more chances of victory, as it's the same origin. And for skill and such things, there is the "conditions" with totality. Totality meaning everything can one get, information and abilities.

Looking at it like this make it look not like omnipotence at all. However, in this look all there is here is contradictions and their resolutions. It's just difficult for us to comprehend anything like this without making it look like not omnipotence at all.

In conclusion (and back the the first take): I don't know whether the second take on it is correct. If the end and totality we can formulate with our minds are all that final, then it's not. Even in this case, there can be an internal rule (or anything else) to be formulated which makes omnipotence (literal) defeatable within a given fictional universe, however you may still argue it's not omnipotence for us, even though it is for them, as for them the logic (or anything transcending it) is bended. If you're telling me a rule (or anything else) can't precede over omnipotence, well it's just your precedence. Within a given fictional universe it may precede omnipotence and it will stay omnipotence within it, because that part is also preceded by something else. Even if for you it's not omnipotence if it's preceded.

It's more like not that omnipotence can't be preceded, it's that if it's preceded, then it's not omnipotence. The cause and the effect are switched.

What is interesting is dogmatic approach to omnipotence by anyone taking the standard position. Not understanding that their position is simple based on that omnipotence is precedential, meaning that if it exists, then it precedes everything. However, if a thing like final immortality exists, omnipotence can't, and vise versa.

Am I overcomplicating it? No. It it was too simple omnipotence could be just beaten because we wouldn't apply logic at all. But it's ridicluous that you treat some set of rules you made up as a universal truth.

If someone needs to separate themselves from the rest of the universe they don't need to worry about forbidding possibility of getting omnipotence for everyone. They just separate and omnipotence is banned for everyone in existence automatically. Because the separation is final. This is the thing