Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-30160565-20171230205913/@comment-26993961-20180116184548

This entire argument is common sense if you stop for a moment and just think about it.

If something such as counter-omnipotence can affect omnipotence, then that omnipotent wasn't omnipotent in the first place because they were countered, meaning that counter-omnipotence isn't even counter-omnipotence to begin with. You might reply with "counter-omnipotence can counter omnipotence because that's what it's designed for!", or something along those lines, to which I'll reply that...

Let's look at it from another angle. If this supposed "counter-omnipotence" can beat the supposed "omnipotent", then that is not a show of countering that omnipotence, but rather, it demonstrates the supposed omnipotent wasn't in fact omnipotent, but rather the one that "countered" them is probably the real omnipotent.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: If an entity can affect an omnipotent with anything without the consent of the omnipotent, then that omnipotent wasn't omnipotent in the first place. It's as simple as that.