FANDOM


(Created page with "<div class="quote"> DYBAD wrote: Patapotence never existed on the Wiki, it was only a subject of discussions. "Patapotence" falls in the "semantic abuse" category, in this ca...")
 
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
You know full well that was not the crux of that discussion. The idea was pitched from a conceptual standpoint of there being an existence of an “author” figure for our own reality. And following the same logic, there could be one for '''that''' creator, and onwards into infinity.
 
You know full well that was not the crux of that discussion. The idea was pitched from a conceptual standpoint of there being an existence of an “author” figure for our own reality. And following the same logic, there could be one for '''that''' creator, and onwards into infinity.
  +
 
Patapotence was a proposal that, like the Inaccessible Cardinal, we could declare in axiomatic logic that there would exist something or someone that is so great, nothing could even begin to imagine it; not even the God of God.
 
Patapotence was a proposal that, like the Inaccessible Cardinal, we could declare in axiomatic logic that there would exist something or someone that is so great, nothing could even begin to imagine it; not even the God of God.
 
You personally rejected this because, “it places undue dominion over other authors’ works,” not because the idea itself was inherently flawed.
 
You personally rejected this because, “it places undue dominion over other authors’ works,” not because the idea itself was inherently flawed.
  +
 
To compound this issue, [[Omni-Creator]] does nearly the same thing, it just masks this mysterious supreme entity as in-universe gods.
 
To compound this issue, [[Omni-Creator]] does nearly the same thing, it just masks this mysterious supreme entity as in-universe gods.

Latest revision as of 19:08, July 16, 2020

DYBAD wrote: Patapotence never existed on the Wiki, it was only a subject of discussions.

"Patapotence" falls in the "semantic abuse" category, in this case a word-based attempt to transcend that which inherently cannot he transcended (Omnipotence and its Metapotence variation, which isn't any stronger since such a thing is impossible, but simply more straightforward).

You know full well that was not the crux of that discussion. The idea was pitched from a conceptual standpoint of there being an existence of an “author” figure for our own reality. And following the same logic, there could be one for that creator, and onwards into infinity.

Patapotence was a proposal that, like the Inaccessible Cardinal, we could declare in axiomatic logic that there would exist something or someone that is so great, nothing could even begin to imagine it; not even the God of God. You personally rejected this because, “it places undue dominion over other authors’ works,” not because the idea itself was inherently flawed.

To compound this issue, Omni-Creator does nearly the same thing, it just masks this mysterious supreme entity as in-universe gods.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.