This might be an incredibly annoying question but is there such thing as anything more powerful than omnipotence? I know that omnipotence literally means all powerful and it is a bit of a self defeating question to answer this but if you were making a character that is more powerful than an omnipotent character as in that it would make an omnipotent character look like nothing, how would you phrase their power in words?
I'd probably say that the character that was thought to be omnipotent was actually Nigh Omnipotent . S/he could do just about anything (and I'd probably build that character up beforehand just to make it as impressive as possible) but got whipped by the new big bad (or big good if the new omni was a "good guy".
Omnipotence is nigh-impossible to reliably prove, and many writers introduce characters officially stated as Omnipotent, only to have them defeated one way or another alongside the storyline, with the underlying aesop that no one is truly invincible (whether for dramatic dynamic or inspirational ascension on the protagonist's part - defeating the seemingly invincible is a very popular trope). So you could simply do the same as they do, it seems to be working well-enough.
Well, by its very definition, there is nothing higher than genuine omnipotence. If anything does turn out to go beyond omnipotence as we understand it, it merely means that we have to change the definition of omnipotence, not that omnipotence is lacking.
See, any character that is described as "omnipotent" yet has some restrictions or weaknessess is merely Nigh Omnipotent. The reasoning, IMO, being that we mortals cannot grasp genuine omnipotence because it's so far beyond us. So anything that goes far enough may seem like omnipotence to us, even when it isn't fully there yet. Do you get what I'm saying?
Yes it is possible, there can be established omnipotents or just one established omnipotent in a story in which all of them are truly omnipotent, yet there is still a being so powerful even the absolute genuine omnipotents are specks to this being.
That's impossible I hear you saying, but do remember, this is fiction, the author's law goes.
This is why, in my opinion, if taken to the apex extreme, Plot Empowerment could surpass omnipotence and even omni-creator, omni-embodiment, etc. since the author's will is the law of that fictional continuity.
If an author calls "fire manipulation" of "dimensional manipulation", is it going to be in fact dimensional manipulation or is it going to be fire manipulation? The most that the author can do is say that omnipotence means something other than "all power". But from this, he is not talking about omnipotence, but calling omnipotence a thing that is not omnipotence. True omnipotence can not be overcome. No matter what the author says, this does not change the semantics of the word.
Well, I'm not defending the practice of doing this to the cancer levels these things reach (It's bad writing, you have been warned), but these are examples that come to mind, in which the authors acknowledge the actual definition of omnipotence, but make things which surpass it anyways.
I could say that in none of the examples you quoted the author was really aware of what omnipotence is. "Omni" means EVERYTHING. It doesn't matter if the author says that omnipotence can't everything, since he has no power to change the meaning of "omni," and if he does, he will no longer be talking about the same thing. From the moment a character can EVERYTHING, it is impossible for something to be above it, for whatever it is, if it can do everything, it has power over it as well.
In Suggs' case, he isn't talking about true omnipotence, by the mere fact that the characters he calls omnipotent can't do everything. Penultimate Pataverse is another. There are no "levels of omnipotence" as this would require that there would be "levels of everything". Everything doesn't assume levels, but all levels are contained in the "everything". To say that there are "levels of omnipotence" is ignorance to the extreme.
In fact, I have always said that there are no true omnipotents in fiction for the sake of logic. I could say that a character like Kami Tenchi for example is inferior to a character like The Writer in DC Comics, because the Writer is literally the one who writes the stories. If we also remember that The Writer is a set of normal humans with human weaknesses, in fact, there is no true omnipotent in fiction.
But anyway, this does not have much to do with the subject.
If he does something superior to him, he creates something he can not do. He will automatically renounce omnipotence. To say "to create something superior to him and to remain omnipotent" is a completely meaningless question, for if he continued to be omnipotent, then the thing he created is not superior to him, for he still has power over it. Junctions of meaningless words don't magically acquire meaning just because we speak "an omnipotent can?".
Well dude that's the logic of humans . Omnipotent can create logic etc so I'm sure they can create something superior then them at same time still be omnipotent kinda like paradox or the omnipotent will be meaningless. I mean what's the point of power where you can do literally anything
If there is something above you, you have no power over this thing. It is an extremely simple consequence. Trying to escape from this is to give an answer that absolutely makes no sense and literally does not answer anything.
If a question has been asked, obviously the expected response has to make sense. If it is not to make sense, why the question?
But if they are beyond rationality, logic, and common sense and can ignore paradoxes then I see no reason why they can't fuck over logic and simultaneously remain truly omnipotent while still having something above them. It's illogical yes, but so are they.
That depends on the theological interpretation you have, but I don't want to get into theology here. The only thing I want to know is: If you know and expect an answer that absolutely makes no sense, why did you ask questions after all, if you knew that the answer would not really answer anything?
The concept of omnipotence and its properties arose in philosophy-theology. The very fact that we are talking about omnipotence already implies that we are talking about.
No by default, this is just an interpretive question. The only thing required by default is that it is above all things. If logic is above all things and it is logic, it would already be above all else (just an example).
"Everything" takes on many different meanings. In one, an illogical proposition is not considered "thing", therefore it is not part of "all things", and therefore "doing all things" doesn't include illogical propositions. Again, this depends on an interpretive point, since an ambiguous word takes on many different meanings.
I personally believe in the anti-scholastic view about which I spoke in the post.