All posts by Horncrowned

@Omni-Defiance

And when they write that a character becomes omnipotent, that’s what counts, what’s written on the paper.

Before we move on, just to be clear: You're conceding your previous argument here, that the writer's interpretation of the text holds more weight that the text itself?

Moreover, the text (like the writer) is not infallible. So if the text misrepresents omnipotence, by having a character become omnipotent or having the Omnipotent overpowered then the text is wrong.

I said that many take author statements as true and you've conceded to this.

Can you point to where I conceded to this? Because I'm certain I never did.

Nope, even if we assume they can thwart any attempt and don’t want to be defeated, that doesn’t mean they will never be defeated. There are reasons why they might be, such as for strategic plans or important lessons.

It's a basic logical argument with two premises and a conclusion. If you don't understand it then that's on you. If you think there's a flaw in one of the premises then point them out.

Yes, there is.

Why are you wasting time by quoting paragraphs out of context for these pointless retorts?

Why not just choose an omnipotent power then? There’s no point in opting for a clearly weaker power.

That was my point.

@Omni-Defiance

Using comics as an example is problematic. It could easily be that the writer intended for the Hulk to be blue, but for some reason, it didn’t happen that way.

It doesn't matter what the writer intends, it's what's written on the page that counts.

In this case, the work itself would be wrong, not the writer.

You can't name one work (comics or otherwise) where this is the general approach.

Either way, this doesn’t counter my point, which is that many people take author statements about a work as true. This means a written work isn’t always held in higher regard.

I told you, these people are idiots and they're the exception. I and even provided an example (whether you like it or not). There are plenty of other examples, such as writers admitting that they were wrong when misciting scenes from books and whatnot.

Omnipotence could be a state or just a power, and it may or may not require perfection. Either way, they could lose and still be omnipotent.

Someone who can thwart any attempt of defeat (P1), and who doesn't want to be defeated (P2); can never be defeated (C).

The only way the Conclusion is wrong, is if either Premise 1 or Premise 2 are wrong.

There are other powers with guarantees

No there isn't.

Don’t pick such a weak power; instead, choose an omnipotent one. Even a basic cosmic being with power on a subgalactic scale could overpower you if you chose such a low-level power.

It doesn't matter what you pick, omnipotence will still end up on top.

To an Omnipotent, nigh-omnipotence is just as weak as pyrokinetics.

@Omni-Defiance

You’re not even trying to counter my point. The version of omnipotence on this wiki isn’t completely supreme in every way; some things have surpassed it in terms of desirability.

That's because desirability is a subjective attribute external to omnipotence. In terms of objective attributes omnipotence is uncontested in every regard.

You’re entirely missing my point, which is that your deduction was flawed. Omnipotence encompasses the ability to do everything, including the illogical and impossible.

I'll repeat myself for the third time, in a simpler manner: If we're talking about illogical omnipotence, then you can't logically deduce anything from it. You can say "An Omnipotent can do that," but you can't say "An Omnipotent can do that, therefore...."

This confusion on your part comes down to you not understanding the Principle of Explosion (which is why I linked it for you and why I'll link it again).

Although this appears logical, it actually isn’t. It assumes that without the resulting contradiction, the being would be omnipotent. However, it ignores that “everything” inherently includes all things that can be described, leading to endless contradictions.

Again, read the article on the Principle of Explosion.

What I’m referring to is omnipotence as you defined it: “The ability/power to do anything/everything.” Beyond meeting this simple definition, there aren’t any additional requirements for a character to be considered omnipotent.

If we're discussing logical omnipotence than anything/everything refers to logical things. Since illogical things are nothings. In this situation there are plenty of inferences that follow from this definition.

When it comes to illogical omnipotence, logical omnipotence is mostly treated as an aphorism for illogical omnipotence.

Of course if you don't buy into that, then that's perfectly fine. But then you can't say anything about illogical omnipotence other than "yes, an Omnipotent can." And any stone paradoxes or omnipotenter beings loses all relevance and meaning, since the Omnipotent could lift the stone and beat the omnipotenter beings to death with it.

That is blatantly false. The written work isn’t always held in higher regard. Many people take author statements as facts about a story.

And these people are wrong, plain and simple. Writer interpretations are still limited to the text. If Ewing said "the Hulk is blue" while referring to his Immortal Hulk run he would simply be wrong, i.e. the text supplants the writer's interpretation. Speaking of Ewing, he even wrote about this on Twitter.

And most people agree.

And an omnipotent being losing doesn’t mean they aren’t omnipotent. Being able to do anything and being unbeatable aren’t the same thing.

Unless they want to lose then they can't lose. Why? Because they have the power to easily thwart any attempt of defeating them.

This further bleeds into the fact that omnipotence is a state of being, and since an Omnipotent would be perfect they'd never want to lose. Hence they can't lose.

And lastly, you’re still ignoring the hypothetical scenario of the post. Stating that omnipotence can’t be gained doesn’t change the implications of a hypothetical situation where gaining omnipotence or any other power is possible.

I already addressed this. We're talking about fiction, not reality.

So, the real question. Is there a power or powers on the wiki that you'd rather have than this omnipotence described by the wiki?

There's no power that I'd rather have over omnipotence because I'm not stupid.

Omnipotence is not only objectively the greatest power in every respect, it's also the only power with any guarantees.

If you pick pyrokinetics and you're born into a world with an Omnipotent, then it's the Omnipotent who gets to decide whether you get to keep that power or not.

@Omni-Defiance

It isn’t the most desirable, so there is a category in which this variation of omnipotence isn’t supreme. It lost.

You're either daft or you're engaging in sophistry. We're not talking about preferences, we're talking about objective qualities as it pertains to omnipotence.

Your second point concedes that there is no logical reason to claim an omnipotent being losing means they aren’t omnipotent, or that it couldn’t have become omnipotent in some way.

My second point proves your previous argument wrong, just as it proves your current argument wrong. Deductions are not applicable to arguments with illogical elements. See the principle of explosion for more detail on why.

That actually makes it worse on your part. They are fictional; there are no such requirements. Anything said to be required is simply arbitrary. If a character can do anything, they are omnipotent, simple as that.

There are definitely requirements on fiction, and verisimilitude is one of them. And if a writer is misrepresenting omnipotence then he's either wrong, or he's not using the formal definition.

If the story says it happened, it happened. You can ignore the author’s intent and the story, but ultimately that's just your opinion.

The written work is always held in higher regard than the author's interpretation of the work. And you can't prove omnipotence, only disprove it. So if an "Omnipotent" loses then they were never truly omnipotent, regardless of what you and Suggs want to believe.

@Omni-Defiance

And yet, it has lost in the category of desirability.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I can interpret this statement to mean three different things at the top of my head. Please make your argument clear.

By that logic, every omnipotent being isn’t omnipotent because they are omnipotent. An omnipotent being can do anything, and a being that can do anything can locate a being more powerful than themselves.

If we're talking about logical omnipotence, then no. More power can't be allocated because more power can't exist. Omnipotence also can't be granted (as only an Omnipotent would be able to grant it, and then there would be two Omnipotents).

If we're talking about illogical omnipotence then deductive arguments do not work.

Either way, you're wrong here.

These are fictional powers. No one can become a pyrokinetic either, but that doesn’t make it impossible to consider.

I was talking about fictional powers (if that wasn't clear?). Characters can become pyrokinetics, but they can't become omnipotent.

A criterion for omnipotence is that the character was always omnipotent. If they were not always omnipotent then they can never be omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a fictional power; there is nothing to prove. If a character becomes omnipotent, they become omnipotent.

Except that can't happen. It doesn't matter how much the writer wants it to happen.

Having a character become omnipotent is the same as having an omnipotent lose. It doesn't matter what the writer has to say about it, if he disagrees he's simply wrong.

Can Omnipotence be defeated?

Obviously not, since that would contradict the definition of omnipotence:

'The ability/power to do anything/everything.'

If there's someone who an "Omnipotent" can't defeat, then the "Omnipotent" can't do everything and is consequently isn't omnipotent.

Omnipotence is often regarded as the greatest power. However, the version depicted here is one of the least desirable imaginable. It comes with numerous negative traits, which would effectively transform you into someone else, leaving not even a shred of your original personality.

Omnipotence doesn't change anyone because no one can become omnipotent.

There can be no point in time where the Omnipotent wasn't omnipotent. If there was then he was never truly omnipotent to begin with.

Omnipotence can't be proven, only disproven, and when someone becomes "omnipotent" (like Thanos absorbing TOAA with the Astral Regulator) we can reject their claim to omnipotence based on the premise above.

This is nowhere near the stomp match people think it is. But Saitama sneezed away Jupiter and Pre-Crisis Superman sneezed away a solar system. So Superman should win.

@Neosaiyan7

It notably didn't affect Thanos, Adam Warlock, or even Captain America. Heck, even Nebula was able to recover from her half-dead state and use it just like anyone else.

@Neosaiyan7 Nebula was a brain-dead zombie before putting on the gauntlet, and it specifically mentions her scarred psyche. People don't lose their minds from putting it on.

I mean Godzilla already defeated the comic version....

@Neosaiyan7 Only Darkseid is searching for the Anti-Life Equation, and it's just a shittier version of the Mind Gem (when working in unison with the other gems) anyway.

1. God's power for 1 day / Infinity Gauntlet (depending on how you define God's power)

2. Immortality (you're going to regret not picking this in 70 years)

3. Omnitrix (could be higher up if you allow Alien X)

4. Superman's powers

5. Unlimited chakra (more versatile than Superman's power, but a lot less convenient to master)

6. Anti-Life Equation (technically allows you to be the leader of the world)

7. One Punch (a useful power, but not so much in the real world)

8. Michael's Sword (does the same thing as One Punch, but can be stolen)

@Necropolis00 That omnipotence can't be a building block of a greater whole. It has to be the greater whole, the entirety of it. Likewise, it can't be something external: If someone is lending you your "omnipotence" then you're not omnipotent.

Omnipotence doesn't really have this dynamic. There's a reason omnipotence here is listed as a State of Being. You're not omnipotent unless it's an internal property (it goes much deeper than this, see Divine Simplicity).

You don't have the time to "desire" anything, you don't even have enough time to process the event and protect your head with your arms. That's the issue.

Moreover that's normally not how wishes work, and if they do then the powers are functionally the same.

What you're asking is effectively "do you want the power to do it yourself, or do you want someone around to do it for you?" There's no reason to pick the latter. Because when you trip and are about to hit your head against the curb, your instinct is "stop" not "I wish for the curb to be made out of cotton."

Then you might as well take infinite money to begin with.

Incomplete means not complete.

Nigh-omnipotent means near complete.

They don't mean the same thing. Although I'd probably prefer quasi-complete instead.

Do you want infinite money or do you want someone who will give you money whenever you ask?

One ability is effectively immortality, the others are going to be fun for 60 years or so before you're on your death bed and you realize that you made the wrong choice.