Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-38425291-20190212034417/@comment-27077671-20190308145505

@SalvationBringer I've given all the proof necessary. I've proven that I don't use any fallacies too. Funny, I remember saying something similar to "If you supposedly refuted it, you would have done it again rather than plainly claiming that you've refuted it with no backbone to your argument. You can't even claim that you would have to repeat yourself if you actually provided evidence." Also remember saying something like "your first sentence is your argument, but the rest of your paragraph doesn't even prove your point" I also remember spamming "POST SOME PROOF," in multiple comments, and yet you still claim you did, but you still haven't even bothered to copy and paste your supposed proof. You wanna know what fallacy this is? One of the worst. Although I really waste time and make arguments which are inefficient and don't touch the core of your mistakes. You haven't made any arguments at all. You haven't even bothered to attempt refuting any of mine. Don't act like you have.

'''But let's just use your viewpoint. Even let's presume mortals don't have anything deep within (which is not a superpower) and just consider powers. Lets even presume that your assumptions about omnipotence on which I disagree are true'''. Your 'deep within' crap is nothing but belief, which you have failed to prove exists. So there's no presumption needed. There's also no assumptions on my part because unlike you, I HAVE posted proof, and I CAN repost the proof.

'''So let's say that a being has absolute immortality, which inclues as it can't be taken by anything, and it is like in omnipotent being only without omnipotence. Then also an omnipotent being exists. Can there be a situation where an omnipotent being takes said immortality?''' Yes. Moving on. If yes, then why can one power be supreme over others? I got a better question: why can't there be one? And a heads up; if you answer this question without providing proof, I'll count it as a concession.

'''Another example: there is an omnipotent being and a nigh-omnipotent being which can do anything omnipotence can except one thing which is not related to having absolute existence, and this is a limitation on power rather than morality or nature. Both beings have absolute existence (or above existence/nonexistence, etc) through their power, and it's equivalent infinity in there.''' Assuming omnipotence is limited to infinity. See you've already screwed up, you can't comprehend omnipotence at all, can you? Would the first being be able to take away all power from the second being just on the basis that it can't do that one thing which is not related to being immune to such action at all? Considering an actual omnipotent wouldn't be bounded by the crap you tried to pull off: yes. Moving on.

'''Well if in both cases you say that such contradiction is resolved in a non-dual way, like with two omnipotents coexisting (Unity or not), then good. I presume you agree these are possible because you've already agreed that there can be more than one omnipotent being.''' I see you failed to comprehend my point. Last I checked, I said "so the 'two omnipotents' are the very same being." Therefore, you're wrong for misinterpreting that because you wanted to focus on solely the first half of my sentence rather than addressing the whole thing.

'''Now I come back to deep within. I want to say that everyone has that something absolute in them.'''

Believe what you want, but nothing is changing without F A C T S and E V I D E N C E, both of which you don't even have.

And it coexisting with omnipotence would mean not "resisting omnipotence" but the same thing that would happen with two omnipotents coexisting and it is related to the situation where one wills one thing while another wills another thing.

You're limiting the omnipotents in this example to only be able to will one thing. Wrong.

Note I don't say everyone is omnipotent, I'm just saying that everyone has the thing deep within which is the same absolute extent omnipotence is (if you say it can't how can you say omnipotence is the absolute reached?), and these absolutes are coexisting, the same way as the two examples above.

No proof = concession.

And you're claiming omnipotence is actually 'reachable' to begin with, and acting as if these omnipotents are two separate entities that coexist, rather than being the same thing.

'''Yeah and it's less than the two examples above and not a superpower. Yeah, Freedom and Fate Denial are listed as powers, but imagine a world where people can't speak, only write and read but have the idea of it. They would think that speaking as a power, but it's ordinary thing to us.'''

Or because they have no mouths? Or vocoal chords? Or the right genetic structure to produce proper tuning? Or in an environment where speech can't really work? This example is garbage, and by this logic, animals have superpowers.

'''So the thing is, anyone has potential to freedom and it's very weak, nothing compared to the power listed. Same with fate denial. Kinda like super strength, we all still have strength but it's not super strength. Only with fate denial and freedom we have even less, just weak potential for it.'''

So you basically just admitted that having enough freedom or fate denying capabilities would officially count as super power by relating it to strength and super strength.

slow clap. Good job, you destroyed your own argument.

'''Also what is deep within (potential to reach anything, given time) existing is essential because everyone has to be able to reach infinity. And that potential is absolute. This is self-evident.'''

Lmao, no. You have no proof that people can 'reach' infinity. You have no proof of this absolute potential of humanity. And the fact that you resort to claiming this is self-evidence is merely another fallacy.

'''And yeah it's without a power. We can do this, this is something just to be seen. It's actually very obvious. Anything is possible. Also you don't need to have anything at all for this, it can happen even if you have nothing, this is how it is.'''

Didn't I ask you to 'jump off of a building and start flying' and your response was just a verbiage of 'I won't because I can't'? Oh, right. So don't give me this 'anything is possible' crap if you have no proof of it. It's blatantly obvious that you are either thick in the skull, trolling, too full of your own ego to back down at this point, or simply have a lack of any brain matter.

'''What is important is that you can't have omnipotence violating this principle because that principle already is absolute. In fiction likewise, because it's like reality.'''

[https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Principle_Manipulation Oh, if only omnipotence could manipulate principles.... oh wait.]

'''Another thing is that we need big proof that any character is omnipotent. Being an origin of existence or supreme being is not enough for being that. And I think such literal omnipotence of the Abrahamic God came from theology rather than the scriptures.'''

> proof of the paradoxical omnipotence

Wow. Tell me what feat is required to prove omnipotence. What do you have to do to prove omnipotence? Exactly. It's a paradoxical idea, you don't prove omnipotence, you disprove it.

And claiming that omnipotence came from theology doesn't change anything at all, you're just rambling.

'''Now on the freedom of unique expression and other parts that challenge omnipotence except one in "Ended" existence I still can't formulate arguments solid in the logic you'd understand, but my claims are true nevertheless. But at least I can attempt this part.'''

Oh please, quit acting all high and mighty, you never gave any actual arguments at all. Also, you're assuming omnipotence is bounded by ended existence, so you're wrong by default.

'''I think this is the strongest argument in the logic you'd understand I get against that, for now. Not that my other arguments are false, they actually are not debunked, despite what you think they are untouched. I think we may end this discussion after you reply (if you do reply of course), because you reject my very sound arguments and I attempted to present a limited case argument in logic you would understand. That is unless you agree with my arguments and ask to elaborate, which I would appreciate.'''

This entire rant is literally not even an argument, you're just trying to boost what little ego you have left in you. Jeez, Pride of the seven deadly sins must be feasting on you right now.

By me asking for proof, I am asking for elaboration,​​​​​​​ I do not understand how you cannot put two and two together. No wait, yes I do understand. You haven't provided proof in any of your arguments, so why bother?