Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-38425291-20190212034417/@comment-27077671-20190305021247

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.

"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.

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?

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'?

I tried to shake you mind so that you may understand that if existing of such being in a fictional verse is messed up, maybe you'll doubt the supremity of the idea of "Fake" omnipotence. I don't give a care if it's 'messed up'. You know what's messed up? Mutilation. Suicidal Inducement. Does that make them any less of a power? No. So just because you wanna whine about morality doesn't change the fact that omnipotence is omnipotence, end of story.

Well maybe it's where it differs. It's more difficult to defend my point because it's a more complex subject, but it's not less true. Or maybe it's the same, and the situation with you is like when you present a modern argument against slavery to a slave owner of 19th century. That doesn't matter. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you don't prove your point, your words mean jack.