Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-38425291-20190212034417/@comment-27077671-20190306154809

SalvationBringer wrote: DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote: SalvationBringer wrote:

DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote: Nothing says powers cannot have limitations. The fact that you are saying "we can't" is double standards. All you have done was repeated your stance that you think a power can defeat omnipotence. That's Argument by Repetition fallacy, look it up. I just repeated to grab your attention because you apparently wasn't paying any. You're quick to jump to conclusions. Congratulations on completely avoiding the argument instead of actually refuting it, claiming I'm jumping to confusion. I've refuted the argument, you simply didn't understand because you're biased. I did not argument by repetition. I repeat simply because I thought you were not paying attention. If you showed attention, I would not repeat. Claiming I'm biased is not only a lie, but a failure of an excuse. You didn't refute anything. 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. POST SOME PROOF.

DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote: "Others can have a power that can defeat Omnipotence. If you say they can't, then I would say: you can't put relation to others in formulation of a thing. It isn't a power if the limitations of others are in its definition. So it can be resisted." I called it double standards because you're claiming that we can't do something while YOU are trying to do something yourself. And your first sentence is your argument, but the rest of your paragraph doesn't even prove your point and is instead filled with hypocrisy. It isn't double standards. It's simple. You can't simply have indisputable power over others against their will. Because they would oppose it by their own power executing their right to freedom/something else. Other things are all possible.

Surprise surprise, yes you can. You have provided no proof of why one cannot have indisputable power, you're merely complaining because you don't like the idea of thinking of yourself as a slave to something. How about cut the fallacies and POST SOME PROOF.

DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote: Claiming freedom doesn't mean jack unless it's actually the power Freedom, in which even that is subject to omnipotence. Let me see you jump off a skyscraper and have your 'freedom' save you from gravity. This is the second time you've made an argument without putting any proof behind it. Prove it or lose it. 1. Any soul may claim freedom, if finds it deep within. 2. Freedom can't be subject to omnipotence. It's freedom. It can't be subject to anything. 3. The principle is that you can do anything. Resist an omnipotent being included. Elsewise you're not free. And if you're not free, you can acquire that freedom and then resist an omnipotent being. 4. If you try to define omnipotence as totally being supreme to freedom and other powers, you fail. These already have resistance to anything, and you can't simply wave it away by saying "omnipotence". You can't define a power by relation of it to other beings. <-- Please pay attention to this. What is your counterargument even?

5. Interesting enough, any soul in reality has that potential to said freedom. As fiction is similar to reality, there it's true too. It can only be false in "Ended" or "Fake" fictions. Sure all fiction is fake, but that would be double fake if rules are unbendable from the start and there is no sign of "End".

1. Prove it. You can't. You'd have to prove that souls exist in the first place, in which no one has without a shadow of a doubt done. So if no one proved souls exist, how are you going to act like it? Just because you want to won't change jack. 2. Congratulations on still trying to think logically about something above logic. Paradox manipulation is a thing. 3. You can't do anything. I'm still waiting for you to jump off of a skyscraper to post your ecidence. What's funny is that your third argument relies on your second argument, so that by destroying your second argument, I killed two birds with one stone. 4. You have YET to prove any of your resistance arguments at all, the only one failing is you. How about you actually prove that we can't define a power that way? All you've done so far was whine "we can't we can't" without giving reasons. What kind of counterargument is that supposed to be? 1. Even if souls don't exist, this still stands. If one utilized what is deep within during life, just before death, or after death during afterlife (without a soul) or because of deep will, then death can be defeated. Even if afterlife would not happen, deep will (willing to exist despite being dead) is most probably possible, although very difficult. When I ascend I may demonstrate the falling from skyscraper thing and defying gravity (I probably would not though), but right now I don't want to have things summed up, I'm not ready for death, and hoping for deep turnaround is ridicluous, I'd rather hope for endgame, afterlife or deep will after death. And why can any being defy fate? Because freedom or at least potential for it is essential to all beings, it's always deep within. And you don't need a fricking power for that. And why is it essential? Because we are not slaves. We are not weak. We are not powerless. This is self-evident. 2. You use logic to omnipotence yourself. And look how you demean freedom. Oh there is a power which is completely supreme over freedom. What a disgrace. Actually freedom is not the only reason why "omnipotence" can be resisted. Although it's not usually the case. 3. For that you can do anything, you can if you find it deep within, and there has to be a long road to that (for a mortal). You can't just do it right away. But the potential is there. 4. For the "fallacy" - just no. See the beginning of my answer. We can't define a power that way because it violates potential freedom of other beings. For example, if such an omnipotent being becomes malevolent (if doesn't have a necessary omnibenevolence at the beginning), you have to be able to defy them. 1. No it doesn't still stand, you literally based that argument solely on the soul, lmao. You're literally doing nothing but trying to claim that 'death can be defeated' through nothing but looking deep within. You don't even know what 'deep within' is, you're just becoming a joke at this point. All you're doing is bringing up vague points with no backbone. Your arguments are literallly nothing but these powers. Guess what? Omnipotence already has all of them to an omnipotent degree and beyond. Not to mention that thse are actually powers and not just some pure 'I'm a human with no powers, just dEtErMiNaTiOn' undertale crap. You act as if Fate Denial and Freedom aren't pages on this wiki. You never bothered to look. And look at you, proving my point about you using fallacies of 'wE'rE nOt SlAvEs, reEEeeEe' as if that is actual proof, and then your hypocritial self turns around and says 'human's aren't powerless', literally destroying the weak argument you attempted to build. So no, that isn't self-evidence, that's blatant ignorance. POST SOME PROOF. 2. Where have I used logic to omnipotence here? I'm literally destroying your argument by proving how illogically superior omnipotence is. You posted zero proof that freedom can actually beat omnipotence, you then say Freedom isn't the only reason, and then you don't even give evidence of that. POST SOME PROOF. 3. This isn't even an argument, you're repeating a mix of number one and two because you ran out of things to say, lmao. Cease. 4. Just yes. What is it with your simplistic view on how to debate to where you think you can sway the opposing side by not posting any evidence, and instead repeating yourself over and over? The beginning of your answer doesn't even give any evidence, NONE of your entire comment gives any evidence whatsoever. You're literally whining because you BELIEVE in freedom. No facts, just belief. Cut the crap and give facts or get out, because your will to believe in anything won't change a thing. What's funny is that you think from a duality standpoint and think an omnipotent has to be omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent. You simply choose to not fathom the idea that as a nondual being, an omnipotent can be both.

DeathstroketheHedgehog wrote: Yeah my mistake. Not logically broken. I would say just "Broken" And that helps you, how? You're still limiting omnipotents to universes. And what would 'broken' even mean in this scenario if not 'logically broken'? Everyone limits omnipotents to their fictional universes. That my line of argument is not main though. The point is that everyone has freedom and if some being circumvents it globally, then the universe is "broken".

My point is that before there is "End" there can exist powers which pure omnipotence can't include because of freedom of information and self-expression in uniqueness. After "End" by omnipotence reign, yes it includes everything.

If I define a power that has potential to resist anything, then you simply can't define omnipotence as being infinitely higher than that. You can't define a power that has a property that there are no others with that power. It's relation to others and no property of a powers. Think two omnipotent beings in one universe. If you say it can't be you're giving a power a property of relation to other beings. And that one omnipotent being can't create another means the power is limited.

The point is that you can't just make one power above all others and ignore all considerations that oppose the all-inclusion just because it's named "omnipotence". Get a heart. And that's where you're wrong: What fictions have you even be reading, lol? Obviously not any actual ones. Have you ever heard of Azathoth for example? Hell, let's get nonfictional with this: ever heard of Panentheism? It's a shame, I debunked your argument both from a fictional and nonfictional standpoint.

Your point is moot because you fail to POST SOME PROOF and you instead you post emotional fallacies; and that's why your argument gets destroyed by mine which actually does provide proof.

Omnipotents already has the power to resist everything, lmao. In fact, it one-ups it by being IMMUNE to everything. It even says it on the page's description, can you even read? On top of that, the page also literally says "including the conceptually impossible and logically impossible", which means it can literally do both of what you just said. And because of Unity, YES, two omnipotents can exist because EVERYTHING is the omnipotent and the omnipotent is EVERYTHING, so the "two omnipotents" are the very same being.

You claim that we can't make omnipotence a thing just because we say "it's named omnipotence." That's a downright lie. I've obliterated your entire argument by posting proof. '''WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? OH WAIT, THERE IS NONE.' Keep crying about your empathic view on how you believe'' things should work, facts stand above you. Facts are objective, not subjective, 'getting a heart' to prove an argument is called 'being biased', which is exactly what you attempted to accuse me of you hypocrite.

Don't even bother responding if you're not going to post some proof.