Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-30160565-20171230205913/@comment-33246115-20180104190939

If there were two omnipotent beings they'd more likely just be aspects of eachother, and therefore would (most likely) not fight eachother.

I was in a RP which had three omnipotents, Grey, Black, and White, however all three of them were mere individual personalities of the same mass entity that represented Yin-Yang and the mixture of both. This made sense as Grey, Black, and White were basically just vessels of the omnipotence itself, therefore they were all one singular entity. Because of this they could fight eachother and win against eachother as they were just three vessels of one being, that being calling the shots of which aspect won. It was also implied these ancient entities were deathless, and that 'death' as humans would see it was merely an act of partial cosmic suicide, so some form of change could take place. "How is this relevant in disproving my argument again"



To me that's the only realistic way you could have that shit work.



" 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.

I for one just downright ignore it's cosmology when discussing the Omniverse.

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 :)