Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-38425291-20190212034417/@comment-38564645-20190305030404

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.

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. Other things are all possible.

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 aftelife (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 falling 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 beings becomes malevolent (if doesn't have a necessary omnibenevolence at the beginning), you have to be able to defy them.

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 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.

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.