The Wolf and the Rabbit. Destruction vs Destruction!
Fight takes place in a neutral dimension (It's already crumbling because of Oz's power. I guess that'll give some chaos for Fenris to feed off of). They know each other only by reputation.
Fenris was able to bloodlust a significantly weakened Lucifer by infecting someone else's blood with his thoughts:
He's immortal, so getting stabbed over and over would only stall him. Plus, he can turn into a sort of spectral lightning:
Said lightning knocked out a weakened Lucifer, Mazikeen and Duma and destroyed God's Primum Mobile:
He only has a physical form if he wills it so (note: Lucifer stalled him from regaining physical shape):
@mr-luxcipher@lordwhiskers respect thread in OP
Fenris
Barring the fact the DCU is fundamentally different, especially in the Lucifer narrative, I think this is really a debate of whether the chains can affect Fenris, and if so, if he decides to blitz.
@cruelestashley: Not sure what you mean by them being fundamentally different.
The chains should work on Fenrir just fine since Oz was able to kill Alyss, who was essentialy the Elaine Belloc of the PH verse. Hard to say in regards to blitzing though.
Not sure what you mean by them being fundamentally different.
These don't exist in the DCU:
He has even severed the invisible and intangible chains that hold reality itself together:
who was essentialy the Elaine Belloc of the PH verse. Hard to say in regards to blitzing though.
Ellaine Belloc is omnipotent and omnipresent, so I doubt it.
@cruelestashley: "These don't exist in DCU"-- Not as far as the characters know about or care to address.
"Ellaine Belloc is omnipotent and omnipresent, so I doubt it"- That's exactly what Alyss is. She is the host for the Core of the Abyss. zthe Abyss is the beginning and the end of all things. It encompasses all dimensions, and transcends space and time. All events, past, present, and future, are recorded in the abyss. When Oz killed Alyss, he had to extract her from the Core, otherwise his power would have destroyed it along with all of creation.
Not sure why you "doubt it", it's not like it's unusual for a story to have it's own TOAA.
Not as far as the characters know about or care to address.
That's absurd. If there's never been a mention or implication across over seventy plus years of varied material, it doesn't exist.
That's exactly what Alyss is. She is the host for the Core of the Abyss. zthe Abyss is the beginning and the end of all things. It encompasses all dimensions, and transcends space and time. All events, past, present, and future, are recorded in the abyss. When Oz killed Alyss, he had to extract her from the Core, otherwise his power would have destroyed it along with all of creation.
You can't kill someone's that's omnipotent--which is made clear in the Lucifer narrative on more than one occasion.
Not as far as the characters know about or care to address.
That's absurd. If there's never been a mention or implication across over seventy plus years of varied material, it doesn't exist.
That's exactly what Alyss is. She is the host for the Core of the Abyss. zthe Abyss is the beginning and the end of all things. It encompasses all dimensions, and transcends space and time. All events, past, present, and future, are recorded in the abyss. When Oz killed Alyss, he had to extract her from the Core, otherwise his power would have destroyed it along with all of creation.
You can't kill someone's that's omnipotent--which is made clear in the Lucifer narrative on more than one occasion.
Different stories focus on different things. In a crossover battle you are supposed to assume that the necessary conditions for a character's powers to work the way they are supposed to are present, otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose. It's like saying a character who draws power from some "dark dimension" type world can't use their powers because there's no dark dimension in other settings.
Then how did Belloc inherit the presence's power?
Can an omnipotent create a rock that it can't lift? There's no right or wrong answer with that. Alyss created Oz as a weapon capable of destroying anything including herself, and therefore his power works on everything including herself. It's really as simple as that.
Different stories focus on different things. In a crossover battle you are supposed to assume that the necessary conditions for a character's powers to work the way they are supposed to are present, otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose. It's like saying a character who draws power from some "dark dimension" type world can't use their powers because there's no dark dimension in other settings.
Except, this power requires the universe to work in a fundamental way. My point was, it can be argued that since the DCU doesn't work that way, Fenris would be immune to the effects. His character isn't bound by those rules and I fail to see why he would be, even if brought to a universe where they exist.
Then how did Belloc inherit the presence's power?
He gave it to her. What, you think he died...?
Can an omnipotent create a rock that it can't lift?
Pointing out a paradox doesn't change the fact it's established omnipotent characters are truly invincible in the narrative. There is no above or beyond it, they are the ultimate, there is nothing that can harm them.
Alyss created Oz as a weapon capable of destroying anything including herself, and therefore his power works on everything including herself. It's really as simple as that.
You've provided zero evidence this character is omnipotent.
Different stories focus on different things. In a crossover battle you are supposed to assume that the necessary conditions for a character's powers to work the way they are supposed to are present, otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose. It's like saying a character who draws power from some "dark dimension" type world can't use their powers because there's no dark dimension in other settings.
Except, this power requires the universe to work in a fundamental way. My point was, it can be argued that since the DCU doesn't work that way, Fenris would be immune to the effects. His character isn't bound by those rules and I fail to see why he would be, even if brought to a universe where they exist.
Then how did Belloc inherit the presence's power?
He gave it to her. What, you think he died...?
Can an omnipotent create a rock that it can't lift?
Pointing out a paradox doesn't change the fact it's established omnipotent characters are truly invincible in the narrative. There is no above or beyond it, they are the ultimate, there is nothing that can harm them.
Alyss created Oz as a weapon capable of destroying anything including herself, and therefore his power works on everything including herself. It's really as simple as that.
You've provided zero evidence this character is omnipotent.
Plenty of powers require the universe to work in a fundamental way. Some stories have magic that require the use of lay-lines and stuff like that. Are we going to deny those characters their powers?
Right, so an omnipotent being transfering their omnipotence (which the Core did after Alyss died) and no longer being omnipotent makes perfect sense, but an omnipotent allowing it's self to be destroyed by something it created with the specific ability to do so doesn't?
The paradox exists whether you like it or not. If an omnipotent in one story cannot create something to destroy itself then that's a limitation in it's own way. It doesn't matter how a story chooses to answer the paradox, neither would disqualify a being from omnipotence.
No evidence? The core is the origin of everything. It's explicitly referred to as the beginning and the end of all things. She has complete control over all space and time. She has rewritten history, erased dimensions, retconned her destruction of said dimensions, repaired dimensions torn apart by Oz, and so on.
@cruelestashley: In any case, Oz's power does not rely on the existence of reality chains. Destroying the chains allows him to spread his damage across an entire dimension, that's all. His power still works without them, it just tends to be more localized, and he's also destroyed dimensions like Cheshire's despite it not actually being held together by said chains.
Plenty of powers require the universe to work in a fundamental way. Some stories have magic that require the use of lay-lines and stuff like that. Are we going to deny those characters their powers?
This isn't the same thing. This requires a change to a cosmic abstract--why should Fenris change to accommodate his opponent?
Right, so an omnipotent being transfering their omnipotence and no longer being omnipotent makes perfect sense,
What makes you think God isn't omnipotent still? He is. All he did was give Elaine the same powers and ran off into the Void.
The paradox exists whether you like it or not.
This is utterly irrelevant. You do realize omnipotence is undefinable, right? It's something that humans cannot truly understand or perceive--it's an unknown concept, innately paradoxical in many ways. These things don't matter though, because we have rules and conditions set up by the narrative.
If an omnipotent in one story cannot create something to destroy itself then that's a limitation in it's own way.
And? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Omnipotence as a concept doesn't make sense, it's unknowable--it doesn't exist--it's entirely hinged on how it's written in the narrative.
It doesn't matter how a story chooses to answer the paradox, it doesn't disqualify a being from omnipotence.
Lucifer doesn't answer it, because it didn't matter to the story.
No evidence? The core is the origin of everything. It's explicitly referred to as the beginning and the end of all things. She has complete control over all space and time. She has rewritten history, erased dimensions, retconned her destruction of said dimensions, repaired dimensions torn apart by Oz, and so on.
I guess the Living Tribunal is omnipotent by that definition. Hey, let's throw Parallax in it while we're at it--he's done stuff like that too.
In any case, Oz's power does not rely on the existence of reality chains. Destroying the chains allows him to spread his damage across an entire dimension, that's all. His power still works without them, it just tends to be more localized, and he's also destroyed dimensions like Cheshire's despite it not actually being held together by said chains.
If his power's not dependent on it, then there's no need to assume it as necessary.
This isn't the same thing. This requires a change to a cosmic abstract--why should Fenris change to accommodate his opponent?
Oz is a cosmic abstract, and what exactly are we changing about Fenris?
What makes you think God isn't omnipotent still? He is. All he did was give Elaine the same powers and ran off into the Void.
2 omnipotent beings cannot coexist, so if he's still omnipotent then Elaine cannot be.
This is utterly irrelevant. You do realize omnipotence is undefinable, right? It's something that humans cannot truly understand or perceive--it's an unknown concept, innately paradoxical in many ways. These things don't matter though, because we have rules and conditions set up by the narrative.
That is my point though. It's undefinable. Rules and conditions set up by the narrative are what matters. Vertigo God can't die no matter what (or so you say). Pandora Hearts god is capable of creating something powerful enough to destroy itself if it chooses too. Both are equally valid ways of approaching the situation.
Lucifer doesn't answer it, because it didn't matter to the story.
You were just claiming that an omnipotent being can't die or be destroyed no matter what.
I guess the Living Tribunal is omnipotent by that definition.
Really?
Oz is a cosmic abstract, and what exactly are we changing about Fenris?
He's not even remotely close to being as abstract as Fenris is--who's the embodiment of destruction itself, though not in the same way Destruction of the Endless is.
2 omnipotent beings cannot coexist, so if he's still omnipotent then Elaine cannot be.
Uh... except they do. This is a rule you just made up that has no credence whatsoever.
That is my point though. It's undefinable.
Until it's defined by the narrative, which is my point.
Rules and conditions set up by the narrative are what matters. Vertigo God can't die no matter what (or so you say). Pandora Hearts god is capable of creating something powerful enough to destroy itself if it chooses too. Both are equally valid ways of approaching the situation.
I see zero indication your god is anymore omnipotent than Odin or Thanos.
You were just claiming that an omnipotent being can't die or be destroyed no matter what.
That has nothing to do with the overused paradox you presented. Omnipotence is, to quote Thomas Aquinas, "perfect power, free from all mere potentiality."
So the Living Tribunal is the sole origin of all of existence?
The Living Tribunal is the most powerful being in existence?
The Living Tribunal encompasses all of existence?
The Living Tribunal can freely rewrite existence?
The Living Tribunal is unkillable unless it specifically creates something capable of performing that act?
Way to move the goal posts. But to answer:
He's not even remotely close to being as abstract as Fenris is--who's the embodiment of destruction itself, though not in the same way Destruction of the Endless is.
But being the embodiment of destruction is exactly what Oz is.
Uh... except they do. This is a rule you just made up that has no credence whatsoever.
No, they can't, because that means they can interfere with each other; which would disqualify omnipotence. At least with the way you seem to be defining it.
Until it's defined by the narrative, which is my point.
Yes, and in the PH narrative, Alyss was able to create a being capable of destroying anything; including herself.
see zero indication your god is anymore omnipotent than Odin or Thanos.
An entity that encompasses all of existence, created every dimension, and has nothing above it or outside of it; is "no more omnipotent than Odin or Thanos"? What? Did you mean Thanos with Heart of the Universe? lol
That has nothing to do with the overused paradox you presented. Omnipotence is, to quote Thomas Aquinas, "perfect power, free from all mere potentiality."
It has everything to do with it. You are saying that Alyss isn't omnipotent because she can be destroyed by something she created with that power. Well then I say the Presence isn't omnipotent because he can't create something capable of destroying himself. (wait, but apparently he can create another omnipotent being, and make it just as omnipotent as him. Because that makes perfect sense, while the other is ludicrous -_-)
Lucifer and Michael are NOT the origin of everything. They may be responsible for creation, but they themselves were created by the Presence.
Being the strongest in a given universe doesn't make something omnipotent. Being the strongest being in the given universe, AND the one that created said universe in the first place with nothing above it or outside of it (aside from the writers themselves); that is about as omnipotent as it gets. There is a very limited number of ways in which a writer can portray an "omnipotent" character, we literally went through the entire check list and you are still saying "not proof". Then what is? What makes Ellaine Belloc or the Presence "omnipotent"?
LT Does not encompass all of existence, because there are plenty of things "beyond" him.
Sparsely supported? It's a core part of the narrative. She wanted to die, but the core can't (or at least refused) to act on itself, so she used a loop hole by creating something that could do it for her. Oz was one of only 2 beings capable of killing her, the other had a similar ability to him (Mad Hatter can negate and destroy all abyssal energy, Oz has the same power except it works on everything).
I love not getting notifcations for things, despite being tagged.
But being the embodiment of destruction is exactly what Oz is.
So Oz is magically present wherever destruction is? His stats only increase the more destruction there is? He can't be harmed physically in any way? It takes another abstract or higher being to kill him? I'm pretty sure even Pikachu could beat him. Quick Attack and Thunderbolt would do him in.
No, they can't, because that means they can interfere with each other; which would disqualify omnipotence. At least with the way you seem to be defining it.
That is frankly, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard regarding this subject. At this point, you're not arguing with me--you're arguing against the scans. You just made up a rule, and now you're trying to shoehorn it into the canon. There is no basis for your reasoning here, nothing to support it in the slightest--it's fan fiction. But I'm going to take this a step further just to disprove any further notions of this nonsense.
Yes, and in the PH narrative, Alyss was able to create a being capable of destroying anything; including herself.
No limit fallacy.
An entity that encompasses all of existence, created every dimension, and has nothing above it or outside of it; is "no more omnipotent than Odin or Thanos"? What? Did you mean Thanos with Heart of the Universe? lol
None of those things imply omnipotence, so yes, I mean regular Odin and Thanos, implying none of them are omnipotent in the same sense God is.
It has everything to do with it. You are saying that Alyss isn't omnipotent because she can be destroyed by something she created with that power.
I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest omnipotence, with what you described not evidencing your claim, and if anything implying otherwise.
Well then I say the Presence isn't omnipotent because he can't create something capable of destroying himself.
You can't destroy something eternal that always was, is and will be. That's the nature of his being--he is forever.
(wait, but apparently he can create another omnipotent being, and make it just as omnipotent as him. Because that makes perfect sense, while the other is ludicrous -_-)
Because we have statements from God, Lucifer, Elaine and narration.
Lucifer and Michael are NOT the origin of everything. They may be responsible for creation, but they themselves were created by the Presence.
They're the origin of everything within the multiverse--and from the perspective of the multiverse, anything outside itself does not exist. This is why existence is relative and what you're saying becomes substantially less impressive when you compare and contrast.
Being the strongest being in the given universe, AND the one that created said universe in the first place with nothing above it or outside of it (aside from the writers themselves); that is about as omnipotent as it gets
Until someone like World's Funnest Mxy slaughters them. From what you've shown, they're not omnipotent by DCU standards. If anything, you're appealing to the other definition of omnipotence: "having great power."
There is a very limited number of ways in which a writer can portray an "omnipotent" character, we literally went through the entire check list and you are still saying "not proof".
That isn't a checklist, it's a bunch of feats adding up to what you consider omnipotence. True omnipotence, in the sense of God, is much greater.
Then what is? What makes Ellaine Belloc or the Presence "omnipotent"?
The narrative.
LT Does not encompass all of existence, because there are plenty of things "beyond" him.
You're missing the point--he encompasses all multiverses, which from the perspective of the multiverses, is all that exists.
Sparsely supported? It's a core part of the narrative. She wanted to die, but the core can't (or at least refused) to act on itself, so she used a loop hole by creating something that could do it for her. Oz was one of only 2 beings capable of killing her, the other had a similar ability to him (Mad Hatter can negate and destroy all abyssal energy, Oz has the same power except it works on everything).
Unless it's stated they're omnipotent, or have some amazing special feat you've been withholding, they still come up short.
@cruelestashley: lol just happened to me too.
So Oz is magically present wherever destruction is? His stats only increase the more destruction there is? He can't be harmed physically in any way? It takes another abstract or higher being to kill him?
No. He wields the power of destruction as a concept. When he applies his power to something, it breaks. Whether it's the fabric of space, a single memory, an entire dimension, doesn't matter. That's what his power is. Even you admitted, that Fenrir has never done anything like destroy dimensions, etc. Both of these characters have advantages over the other.
And for the record, no Oz's true form cannot be killed by physical means. You can destroy the human vessel that he's using, but the entities from the abyss can ONLY be killed by other entities from the abyss. Otherwise, they simply reform themselves. Furthermore, depending on the individual entity, how much damage it can soak even from other abyssal entities can vary quite wildly. Cheshire for example (one of the few beings considered to be around Oz's level), was nigh immortal. He's been chopped into pieces, had dimensions collapse on him, got sucked into a temporal vortex that scatters your mind and body, and has come back from ALL of that. It was never explicitly stated, but based on his feats; it's highly likely that Oz, Mad Hatter, and Alyss herself were the only characters capable of killing him permanently. Maybe the Jurors could, we didn't get to see too much from them.
Oz spent most of the story trapped in a human body and unaware of his status. The full extent of his power has not been explored.
That said, Pikachu can't do anything to him lol. In his human form, it could potentially blow him apart (though he'd just delete the lightning). In his true form, he is more than tanky enough to handle the lightning, and would simply reform any damage done.
No limit fallacy.
That's an over-used term that with no legitimate meaning. When people say "no limits fallacy", what they are really referring to are hasty generalizations and arguments from ignorance. Simply making an absolute statement is not a "no limits" fallacy. Unless of course, you think scientific laws like the conservation of matter and energy are "no limits fallacies".
From a story telling perspective, whether or not declaring something is without limits makes it a fallacy depends entirely on context. When a story is written on a cosmic scale depicting the creation of the setting itself, then it's not a no limits fallacy. There are no hasty generalizations, because you a viewing the setting from a top-down perspective, and can see that each of the laws really are intended to be absolute; just like your declaration that Ellain Belloc and the Presence are omnipotent.
That is frankly, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard regarding this subject. At this point, you're not arguing with me--you're arguing against the scans. You just made up a rule, and now you're trying to shoehorn it into the canon. There is no basis for your reasoning here, nothing to support it in the slightest--it's fan fiction. But I'm going to take this a step further just to disprove any further notions of this nonsense.
No, I am not making up rules or shoehorning anything into cannon. I am simply pointing out the fact that having two omnipotent characters directly contradicts the semantic definition of "omnipotence" in the same way that having a being capable of destroying an omnipotent character does.
Omnipotence is the ability to do absolutely anything. If two omnipotent beings co-exist then what happens when they contradict each other? If Oz destroying Alyss or the Core makes it "not omnipotent"; then if either the Presence or Elain are able to prevent the other from doing something it would disqualify the other's omnipotent status on the exact same 'grounds'.
None of those things imply omnipotence, so yes, I mean regular Odin and Thanos, implying none of them are omnipotent in the same sense God is.
Yes, they do! That's exactly how we define something as omnipotent. There is no other way to define/describe omnipotence or god within a story, and neither Odin or Thanos come close to the absolutes in that checklist.
You can't destroy something eternal that always was, is and will be. That's the nature of his being--he is forever.
Okay first off... "is and will be"? That's the exact same thing as saying that the Abyss is the "beginning and the end of all things". Yes, the Abyss is eternal. The Core represents it's sentience and is what holds together the structure of creation. Alyss is the host, the one who wields it's omnipotent power. Oz destroyed the host, and the core was able to choose a new one. If Oz had destroyed the core as well, then the structure of the dimensional plane would have collapsed, and all of creation (Past, present, and future) would have returned to the "Abyss", aka; the eternal void in which everything exists inside. What would have happened after that is unknown. Maybe new core would have formed, maybe not. Oz did not choose that ending, and so we will never know.
Furthermore, that description is only one aspect of what constitutes "omnipotence". The other aspect is the ability to do absolutely anything. You say that the Presence is eternal, and that puts her higher than Alyss, who was destroyed. Well then I say that Alyss is able to create a being capable of destroying something that's eternal, while the Presense cannot; and that makes her the more powerful one. These statements are neither right nor wrong, it's all just a matter of how you choose to look at things.
The biggest factor you are missing in all this, is that it's a STORY. It doesn't have to make sense to you. If someone wants to write a character capable of killing God and other "eternal" things, then that is the writers choice, and it is a perfectly valid way of telling a story. You are basically saying that such a thing isn't allowed, because it doesn't make sense to you. You are saying that any feat of killing/destroying an omnipotent or eternal being is automatically invalid, because you don't like it.
They're the origin of everything within the multiverse--and from the perspective of the multiverse, anything outside itself does not exist. This is why existence is relative and what you're saying becomes substantially less impressive when you compare and contrast.
Okay, now you are just grasping.
Until someone like World's Funnest Mxy slaughters them. From what you've shown, they're not omnipotent by DCU standards. If anything, you're appealing to the other definition of omnipotence: "having great power."
If those statements are true, then Mxy would not be able to slaughter such a character. If Mxy can slaughter such a character, then all of the statements in that checklist would not be valid.
True omnipotence, in the sense of God, is much greater.
No it isn't. God is a status. It is the status of being the supreme being within the story. It is the status of being the sole creator of everything, having power over everything, and encompassing everything.
You're missing the point--he encompasses all multiverses, which from the perspective of the multiverses, is all that exists.
Which is obviously not true, because there are things that are beyond him, and are more powerful than him. He clearly does not encompass everything, because he himself is just one part of the Heart of the Universe. The latter is far closer to what the Core of the Abyss is than the Living Tribunal. The Living Tribunal is far closer to the Jurors in status (collectively, not individually).
Unless it's stated they're omnipotent, or have some amazing special feat you've been withholding, they still come up short.
What kind of "special feat" trumps being the sole origin of EVERYTHING? If you are asking whether the word omnipotent was ever directly used, then no, but she has been described as such in pretty much every other way possible. We may as well argue that Lucifer is only universal since that's the terminology used by his story.
Again, she is "the beginning and the end of all things", that's a biblical reference. The Will of the Abyss is depicted in every possible way as THE GOD of the story.
No. He wields the power of destruction as a concept. When he applies his power to something, it breaks. Whether it's the fabric of space, a single memory, an entire dimension, doesn't matter. That's what his power is. Even you admitted, that Fenrir has never done anything like destroy dimensions, etc. Both of these characters have advantages over the other.
This isn't about advantages, it's about abstraction. Oz barely sounds abstract at all.
That said, Pikachu can't do anything to him lol. In his human form, it could potentially blow him apart (though he'd just delete the lightning). In his true form, he is more than tanky enough to handle the lightning, and would simply reform any damage done.
Oz lacks the speed and durability feats to beat Pikachu. Thunder at its highest would decimate his body entirely, whereas Iron Tail would mash him into pieces. As far as "erasing the thunder", he wouldn't even have the time. So yeah, he's free to reform all he wants, but it's just going to be the Chu blitzing and annihilating. I also highly doubt he has the resistance to regenerate from Pikachu's strongest attacks. This is like, someone arguing Cell can regenerate from anything and everything on the basis that he has regeneration.
That's an over-used term that with no legitimate meaning. When people say "no limits fallacy", what they are really referring to are hasty generalizations and arguments from ignorance. Simply making an absolute statement is not a "no limits" fallacy. Unless of course, you think scientific laws like the conservation of matter and energy are "no limits fallacies".
This isn't a "scientific law", it's you proclaiming your character's attack potency has no limit, which is asinine. If it doesn't have the feats to meet the resistance, it's not going to do anything--period.
From a story telling perspective, whether or not declaring something is without limits makes it a fallacy depends entirely on context. When a story is written on a cosmic scale depicting the creation of the setting itself, then it's not a no limits fallacy. There are no hasty generalizations, because you a viewing the setting from a top-down perspective, and can see that each of the laws really are intended to be absolute; just like your declaration that Ellain Belloc and the Presence are omnipotent.
Not even remotely the same. This generic anime world you're trying to represent does not meet the same standards of the DCU or Marvel. Elaine and Yahweh have perfect, unlimited, infinite power in the name of God--that is the nature of their beings--unlike the phony you're bragging about.
No, I am not making up rules or shoehorning anything into cannon. I am simply pointing out the fact that having two omnipotent characters directly contradicts the semantic definition of "omnipotence" in the same way that having a being capable of destroying an omnipotent character does.
I'm not going to abide by the rules of whatever fan fiction you're cooking up, ignoring the narrative and making up your own rules. In fact, what you're saying doesn't even make sense. Even if the narrative wasn't on my side, it still wouldn't support what you're saying. There is no contradiction. This like, a little kid saying it's a contradiction his shoes are purple--like, okay. And, "semantic definition"? You do know what semantic means, right? And how utterly redundant that sounds? This is just further evidencing you're making things up as you go long. Irrespective of what you say or speculate, Yahweh and Elaine exist as omnipotent entities. If the two directly attacked each other? They'd probably stalemate, even if their powers are viewed as a sliding scale.
Omnipotence is the ability to do absolutely anything. If two omnipotent beings co-exist then what happens when they contradict each other?
Whatever the writer wants to happen. Most likely outcome? They'd stalemate each other and nothing would happen.
If Oz destroying Alyss or the Core makes it "not omnipotent"; then if either the Presence or Elain are able to prevent the other from doing something it would disqualify the other's omnipotent status on the exact same 'grounds'.
Those are two separate concepts. First, your anime nub isn't omnipotent, and you've failed to show they are. Second, even if they did, it would be two infinite forces meeting each other. I fail to see how this would be any different than two Michael Demiurgos explosions meeting each other, as Michael's Demiurgic power is the power of God--an infinite shore of power. You're making the assumption that something would be "prevented", but in what way? They're both omnipresent with infinite power. If you were to assume the dark god claiming to be Yahweh right now in Lucifer is truly omnipotent, and Elaine didn't take a hands-off approach, it's unknowable what exactly would happen or why it would happen. So even in an ever so slightly practical approach, this fan fiction you've made up relies on assumptions that lead nowhere.
Yes, they do! That's exactly how we define something as omnipotent.
No it isn't--omnipotence is the power of God--infinite, perfect, unlimited, etc.
There is no other way to define/describe omnipotence or god within a story,
Tell that to medieval apologists.
and neither Odin or Thanos come close to the absolutes in that checklist.
They sure aren't omnipotent, just like your character.
Okay first off... "is and will be"? That's the exact same thing as saying that the Abyss is the "beginning and the end of all things".
No it isn't, because your character died and is capable of death. God however, is eternal. When he was dreamed into existence, existence was retconned by his very name so that he always was, is and will be.
The Core represents it's sentience and is what holds together the structure of creation. Alyss is the host, the one who wields it's omnipotent power.
You've yet to show any evidence this character is omnipotent. All you've done is show that they're a creator. Like I said, they're no more omnipotent than Parallax or the Living Tribunal.
Oz destroyed the host, and the core was able to choose a new one. If Oz had destroyed the core as well, then the structure of the dimensional plane would have collapsed, and all of creation (Past, present, and future) would have returned to the "Abyss", aka; the eternal void in which everything exists inside. What would have happened after that is unknown. Maybe new core would have formed, maybe not. Oz did not choose that ending, and so we will never know.
If something can be destroyed, it's not eternal. If anything, it seems you're taking hyperbole literally.
Furthermore, that description is only one aspect of what constitutes "omnipotence". The other aspect is the ability to do absolutely anything. You say that the Presence is eternal, and that puts her higher than Alyss, who was destroyed. Well then I say that Alyss is able to create a being capable of destroying something that's eternal,
You're still operating on the assumption that these powers somehow equate to omnipotence, when in fact, you've failed to demonstrate that as the case. And no, I reject the claim your "Alyss" was able to create something to destroy an eternal being, because they weren't eternal in the first place.
while the Presense cannot; and that makes her the more powerful one. These statements are neither right nor wrong,
That's the stupidest thing I've heard. So a carrot farmer would be more powerful than God because the carrot farmer could kill himself with a carrot? And this all operates on the premise your character is omnipotent, which has not been demonstrated. All you have shown is that they're a high end creator, which is far gap from God.
The biggest factor you are missing in all this, is that it's a STORY. It doesn't have to make sense to you.
You've failed to provide evidence the story supports your claims, whereas I have evidenced that Lucifer supports mine.
If someone wants to write a character capable of killing God and other "eternal" things, then that is the writers choice, and it is a perfectly valid way of telling a story.
Except you've failed to demonstrate that as the case. You've relied on failed logical paradoxes and poorly grasped semantical arguments to try to prove your point, which is not how this works--demonstrate your character is actually omnipotent.
You are basically saying that such a thing isn't allowed, because it doesn't make sense to you.
I'm saying you trying to justify your character as being omnipotent by the fact they have high end feats is ridiculous.
You are saying that any feat of killing/destroying an omnipotent or eternal being is automatically invalid, because you don't like it.
I'm saying you've failed to evidence your claim that your character is omnipotent, eternal, etc.
Okay, now you are just grasping.
That's not grasping--existence is relative.
If those statements are true, then Mxy would not be able to slaughter such a character. If Mxy can slaughter such a character, then all of the statements in that checklist would not be valid.
Mxy has better feats and more power. You've failed to demonstrate they have the necessary power and or resistance to handle Mxy. Because going by your checklist, Mxy has the power to meet your criteria of omnipotence, which further shows how ridiculous this is.
No it isn't. God is a status. It is the status of being the supreme being within the story.
Yet, if you compare the status you're using to the status of God, they fall incredibly short. But I guess, if I wrote a story about ants, and maybe a giant alien bug, that bug being the supreme being in the story would make them God. Utterly absurd. The concept of God, as irrational as it is, is something entirely separate.
It is the status of being the sole creator of everything, having power over everything, and encompassing everything.
Being the creator of everything is not enough, and you've failed to demonstrate the other two attributes.
Which is obviously not true, because there are things that are beyond him, and are more powerful than him.
You can ignore the fact existence is relative all you want, but it doesn't change that's what it is.
He clearly does not encompass everything, because he himself is just one part of the Heart of the Universe. The latter is far closer to what the Core of the Abyss is than the Living Tribunal.
To the multiverse, it is everything, which he represents.
The Living Tribunal is far closer to the Jurors in status (collectively, not individually).
The LT would blink your anime scrub world out of existence.
What kind of "special feat" trumps being the sole origin of EVERYTHING?
Yeah real impressive--it's not like Lucifer and Michael did that or anything. But oh wait, "they can't create themselves!" Right? Their Independence somehow makes that substantially less impressive, right? This is what omnipotence is predicated on? That's laughable. Being a creator does not indicate omnipotence, nor does being the strongest, especially when your character fails to live up to the high end beings of the MCU and DCU.
If you are asking whether the word omnipotent was ever directly used, then no,
Strike one.
but she has been described as such in pretty much every other way possible
Not seeing anything to support this--strike two.
We may as well argue that Lucifer is only universal since that's the terminology used by his story.
Strike three. Maybe you should actually read Lucifer, because multiverse is used.
Again, she is "the beginning and the end of all things", that's a biblical reference.
Prove it.
The Will of the Abyss is depicted in every possible way as THE GOD of the story.
I've seen zero proof of this other than your speculation.
@cruelestashley: When you first posted, I was pretty hyped and ready to start picking apart everything you said. I got a bit over half way through then had a shit ton of RL interruptions. Now that I am back (hours later), the mood has kind of passed, and I don't really feel like continuing the conversation. I know you debate a lot, especially with large posts, so I am sure you understand.
I'll just say that from my point of view; there's a lot of bias and double-standard with how you are choosing to judge the two stories. Interpret that how you will, doesn't really matter.
Four thousand posts. And BUMP.
I think Fenris can take it. But I would be interested to hear other people's opinions.
Oz completely obliterates them together with their world and most others
oz vessalius completely demolishes the fodder and the entirety of the dc fodderverse alltogether
Fenris murder the weeb
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment