Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-30160565-20171230205913/@comment-29564364-20180104155553

TheVoidWalker69 wrote: If the omnipotent is fictional, then the one depicting it is the author. It's up to the author to make sense of that. Thing is, he can't. Exactly.

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?

But if you got Kami Tenchi and Khaos/Chaos and threw them in the same reality continuity one of them would have to be less than the other, otherwise they'd both be nigh omnipotent, unable to do everything, as they are unable to win the fight. Doesn't matter if we can't depict it, if they can't win, they're clearly not omnipotent. One of them would have to be lesser than the other if both are subject to the laws of logic. But if they are not, they could ignore the law of non-contradiction and both be above the other at the same time.

This is why omnipotents are enclosed to their respective cosmologies, because that only makes sense.

And this is why things such as Suggsverse are absolute cancer.

Omnipotence: All-Powerful

ALL

If there is something above you, by definition, you are not All-Powerful.

When I imagine the Omniverse I think of an infinite stream of cosmologies inter-connected but equally separate from eachother, some ruled by all-powerful beings and some not, with an unspoken rule that these omnipotent beings are not to fight eachother, for it would revoke their status. Close, but not quite. The reason there is a general consensus about omnipotent beings being restricted to their respective continuity is that description and/or depiction of ideas is vital to communicating a narrative to other people. However, that is impossible to do in the cases of Omnipotence vs Omnipotence because it transcends logic, so we just avoid doing it, but that fact is irrelevant in this discussion because we dwell in hypothetical situations whose conclusions are not dependent on our ability to describe or depict them.

To draw a parallel with mathematics, we avoid dividing by zero because the principle of explosion leads to the conclusion that 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5..., with all being equally true by the rules of the system, which we call indeterminacy. It is not indeterminate because the answer is contradictory, it's indeterminate because the answer could be any number and we have no way to determine which one it is. It's the same thing with Omnipotence vs Omnipotence. The outcome could be a win, it could be a loss. It could be both, neither or a stalemate. Or it could even be something entirely other and beyond our scope of imagination. We simply don't know and have no way to determine which it is, so we avoid the situation all together.

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 in his work.