Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26484417-20180225092054/@comment-26484417-20180302073509

DYBAD wrote: Too much meta-fictional reflection does tend to blur the line between fiction and reality ^ ^; Indeed, after all, that's the entire point of meta-fictional powers. The question is whether one can then account for this in their reasoning, or not.

"There is no actual fictional character autonomy going on there."

Exactly. At the end of the day, it's just a writer puppeteering a character, just like they do with any other. The issue with this argument is that the autonomy, or lack thereof, of the character with the power is of no consequence; we're not trying to ascertain whether a character has any intention of invading our world, we're not even talking about their ability to decide to do it by themselves, the issue I raised is simply that the power--according to the description of this very wiki--allows them to accomplish it. And this de facto means that they can--based on the as-is description--do something that violates the description; in other words, the as-is description is flawed.

DYBAD wrote:...That is real-life religious Omnipotence you are describing here, not SPW Omnipotence... Since the users of Omnipotence listed on this wiki include monotheistic God, as well as Hindu Trimurti and Vishwakarma (two users from one religion being a violation of its description), I would say that the wiki doesn't recognise the distinction you're using here to defend it. Moreover, even if the wiki were to make the distinction--to appease those who might take offence upon reading the article perhaps--, there would still be no difference in the eyes of an atheist. Which in turn means that there is no objective way to justify the distinction.

BubbleGumRain wrote: ... Your BICL example is very well thought out and even I cringed at it myself because it just irked me how the world works, but guess what, Omnipotent beings manipulate logic and nobody can understand why or how, but they jus do. ... I "address" this issue in my response to AlphaTheHD in the early part of this thread; the idea is that when a user of so-called omnipotence bypasses the paradox associated with lifting the BICL it has created, it may have in fact merely demonstrated power of logic manipulation.

My response further postulates whether the very notion of bypassing the logical standard of the original request still qualifies as satisfying it, because--in strictest terms--it should not.