who can beat the many forms of Christopher Sincere Pride?

This Suggsverse makes my head hurt; not in a cool Final Crisis way where it’s pretty awesome when you stop and think about it a bit but in a “Does this guy have any idea what he is writing” way.

@spiderman1997: Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the true art of transcending of transcending the transcending.

Not really. Power beyond omnipotence. Speed beyond omnipresence. Are concepts most writers are too afraid to touch on .

Sure, and I walk on my head instead of my feet.

I'm fine thanks.

It's officially published here and is part of my intellectual property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

I'm not promoting, I'm not selling anything.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/promote

promote verb [T] (ADVERTISE)

to advertise something in order to sell it: The new modelcars are being heavily promoted on television.

Oh and swear words...

@majinblackheart

@bumpyboo

@vance_astro

@jedixman

@sergeantmuscle: Probably because those “concepts” are each only a way saying “And I have inifinity +1!” while trying to sound philosophical.

what swear words?

You're so desperate that you're now trying to get thread locked. Sorry Your garbage OC is not usable for debates here.

@kyushi_: I do truly apologize for my ignorance sir.

It's best to look at heir to the star as a story trying to explore the hypothetical the limits of how strong a fiction character can truly become.

More swear words I see.

@spiderman1997: I trulye ultraly transcendly, above all else, below all else, beyond the concept of omnipotence, forgive you, while not forgiving you.

@sergeantmuscle: I’ll take a look at it. Should be a fun time if nothing else.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, are you saying that if a verse hasn't taken the time to explain its world, we should disregard it and all of the feats it holds?

Well, the particular example that you are giving is not actually impossible. Omnipresence has nothing to do with speed. It just means that a character resides everywhere, it doesn't actually say anything about the speed he perceives things. Let me give you an example to make things more clear (hopefully). If I was the only thing that exists, I would be omnipresent. Noting about the speed at which i process changes, I still have normal human reaction speed.

This is why a an omnipresent being can get blitzed. In fact its rather difficult not to hit an omnipresent being, because he would be everywhere. You just need to be destroying anything and you will be hurting him.

I know what you meant. I'm just pointing out that it has no meaning. There's no such thing as "faster than omnipresence" or "faster than infinite speed." It's a phrase that purports to have meaning but does not. Like saying "emptier than empty space" or "even less than nothing"

Suggs making a thread for his own wank characters is GOAT worthy

@deagonx: Zeroer than Zero

And it's totally against the rules on several levels.

It would if I was actually Mr.suggs. but I'm not.

But you can less be than zero. That is what is know as negative numbers.

There's no such thing as "There's no such thing " in Suggsverse. the word "Impossible" doesn't exist. All possibilities and impossibility can be achieved with enough power.

Something being impossible and something being meaningless are two very different things. A "square circle" isn't simply impossible, it isn't a thing. It's two words with diametrically opposed qualities. Being "faster than infinite speed" means nothing. Infinite speed means you can arrive anywhere instantaneously. Theres no such thing as faster than that without time travel, which has nothing to do with speed.

Yeah sure Suggs, very convincing

I am not him. I do not like how every time a person that argue in favor of Suggsverse on any forum they are immediately accused of being him,

Cuz you are the only dude who does it, Suggs

No one is "afraid" to touch on them, it's just that it's completely meaningless. There's no such thing as above omnipotence. That's what it means to be omnipotent. If there is, then "omnipotent" is a misnomer.

OC are not usuable for debates. which sucks because my two OCs "a not dumb theanimal666" and "a smarter ezra" would stomp them john bobozob into the ground.

Your using regular logic. Suggslogic* allows a person to ignore this issue and surpass it.

*Suggslogic is an actual in universe concept that allow any character that can understand it the power to surpass basic logic and common sense.

@sergeantmuscle:

Your using regular logic. Suggslogic* allows a person to ignore this issue and surpass it.

Then you're saying nothing in Suggsverse can be discussed regularly because it advertises the fact that the definitions of words are being ignored. So no one in Suggs is "beyond omnipotent" they are "beyond omnipotent*"

*Some word that is read and pronounced as "omnipotent" but has a completely different meaning than the actual word.

That must also go for faster than infinite* speed

*Some word that is read and pronounced as "infinite" but has a completely different meaning than the actual word.

I am actually not the only one. And I am not Suggs, I'm just a fan of his.

You seem to be confused. And I think the best person to help see the light is Lionel suggs's himself.

Omnipotence Defeated

I have had a few debates of my own recently involving Omnipotence. There are debates online that have created this definition of Omnipotence that basically surpasses its definition (the irony here…). In other words, Omnipotence isn’t Omnipotence, unless it’s the “defined” Omnipotence? I would question doesn’t the realm of Definition still surpass Omnipotence? I mean, in order for you to be aware of Omnipotence, decree what “true” Omnipotence is, and basically debate against or for Omnipotence and what isn’t Omnipotence, a definition is required?

It’s understandable that lower dimensionals want to maintain the notion that Omnipotence is tier 0 – the highest pinnacle of status. However, if one were to label it a limit, then it instantly gets attacked because that goes “against” what Omnipotence is. The satire here and the fallacy here of itself start to attack Omnipotence, and weaken it. Now, you once again create a logical definition for an illogical status. And when Omnipotence doesn’t meet your standard of perfection, you simply shrug it off as not the correct Omnipotence.

If Omnipotence is looked at as a power, then it gets attacked. If one gains omnipotence, then it’s not true Omnipotence, because it shouldn’t be something that can be gained? That’s another debate. While I agree that it shouldn’t be looked at as a power, there are definitions of Omnipotence that state that it means have infinite power. One could easily make this mistake. However, do these definitions specify how much infinite power it has? Does it elaborate on the levels?

I’ve seen Omnipotence classified as everything that I defined and created and more, and was wondering where this definition of Omnipotence is? This is similar to the God of Christian faith, where if new concepts are created, greater than it, there are those that simply add-on to what it already is in order to maintain its perfection.

I’ve seen the debate that real Omnipotence doesn’t exist because true Omnipotence would have power over real life and since no Omnipotent entity has such power, there is no Omnipotent. If they cannot go against another work of fiction, they are bound to their own work. Once again, a definition and a limit have been applied to Omnipotence. Ironically, I’ve yet to see such an official definition, outside of my own works. Then true Omnipotence is limited to copyrights. Omnipotence gains so many limitations and definitions, which also fall into the realm of Perspective. But what is real life? How do we not know our world is a fictional tale within the comic book of another dimension? What if one creates “real life” in their work of fiction (I see the irony here) and has Omnipotence over said dimension, why doesn’t the rule still apply?

There are so many factors in discussing Omnipotence. Nothing I’ve said is new. However, if it doesn’t fit one’s definition, then it’s not true Omnipotence. While so many give it a definition, and then state it is beyond definition – like it’s somehow beyond information (yet information about it exists), they call it illogical in respect or logical to a metaphysical extent; they still end up creating a limit for it themselves. But there are so few that actually try to see it from the realm of an Omnipotent entity, and how they would see said realm. The moment you say there is more than one, you’re like it cannot be real Omnipotence. Maybe their definition of one is different than ours? Maybe ALL that we define is something very small to them, which should be. Maybe they have their own version of zenith that is higher than what we call Omnipotence.

Ultimately, while there are various definitions of Omnipotence, even from the perspective of what is accepted, I do not see why it’s scaled the same in every fictional realm, where different realms encompass different scopes. It’s literally saying this entity can do this without any feats or backing that can confirm it, and surpass an entity that does have the feats that shows it's outright superior because they have the same status. That’s asinine. -Lionel Suggs (2016)

@sergeantmuscle: You are the only one, Suggs, no one is quoting him but you

Sure, Suggs.
You aren't Suggs, Suggs.
People think that you= Suggs. :o

@sergeantmuscle:

You seem to be confused. And I think the best person to help see the light is Lionel suggs's himself.

I am not confused at all. I've read the post, and he's wrong. So that basically tells us that since Suggs himself is uneducated about what omnipotence actually means, it can't be taken seriously within his work of fiction. I assume that goes for his understanding of infinity as well.

I think that's it :o

I doubt you read it then. True omnipotent as a status is a nonsensical paradoxes. you once again creating a logical definition for an illogical status. while at the same time limiting what omnipotence can do. If an omnipotent being can not make themselves stronger they are not omnipotent since omnipotent is defined as the power to do anything.

@sergeantmuscle:

I doubt you read it then.

I did read it. He doesn't say anything particularly insightful or interesting, he just reveals the fact that he doesnt like the idea of omnipotence and doesnt understand it.

True omnipotent as a status is a nonsensical paradoxes. you once again creating a logical definition for an illogical status.

There is nothing illogical about omnipotence.

while at the same time limiting what omnipotence can do. If an omnipotent being can not make themselves stronger they are not omnipotent since omnipotent is defined as the power to do anything.

The "stone paradox" is an illogical problem, not a logical one. It's a defect of language, not of omnipotence. An omnipotent can't "create a stone heavier than he can lift" because logically no stone with that quality can exist. His ability to lift things isn't limited by it's weight, so increasing that attribute will never affect his ability to lift it.

Omnipotence means you can do anything logical. Since illogical things aren't really things at all. Logic is the framework through which we understand things. Language is capable of proposing illogical concepts, but that doesn't make omnipotence a paradox.

Lionel Suggs doesn't understand this, which means his work of fiction can't be taken seriously as it pertains to the concept of omnipotence.

Thing takes a dump on the verse

That is incorrect. There is noting illogical in creating a stone so heavy that you cannot lift it. I can do it. A few bags of sand, cement and some water and I can create an object so heavy that I cannot lift it. Its only impossible for an omnipotent being, but its completely logical and possible for any non-omnipotent being.

If you define Omnipotence to be the ability to do anything logically possible, I can claim myself as omnipotent, because I can only do things that are logically possible to me.

When I looked at his first form I was thinking, oh cool seems like this is a powerful character in a neat manga.

Saw it was suggsverse

aight imma head out

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Metapotence due to the omnipotent paradox there are many ways to go about this is suggsverses way.

The power to do anything without justification. Simplified variation of Omnipotence based on Logic Manipulation as well as being the ultimate version to the latter.

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Omnipotence

True Omnipotence can do the impossible such as "bigger than infinity", "making a squared circle" or "transcending itself."

Everyone seems to have their own definition of omnipotence and if the doesn't match theirs it's not the right one.

@one_of_two:

That is incorrect. There is noting illogical in creating a stone so heavy that you cannot lift it. I can do it. Its only impossible for an omnipotent being, but its completely logical and possible for any non-omnipotent being.

I felt it was pretty obvious I was speaking within the context of an omnipotent being doing that.

If you define Omnipotence to be the ability to do anything logically possible, I can claim myself as omnipotent, because I can only do things that are logically possible to me.

That's not the kind of logic I am talking about. You are limited by your own strength, intellect, and time. None of those limitations apply to an omnipotent being, which has no limitations. It's a misnomer to even refer to logic as a "limitation" because anything described outside of logic isn't a thing at all, it's a meaningless mismash of words.

Language is capable of proposing things that have no genuine meaning, incoherent phrases or objects are able to be proposed through language even if their properties are incongruent with eachother.

An omnipotent can make or do any thing, but it cannot create a square circle, because a square circle is not a thing, it is a meaningless phrase that cannot exist with the current definitions of the worlds involved.

@sergeantmuscle:

due to the omnipotent paradox there are many ways to go about this is suggsverses way.

The omnipotence paradox does not mean omnipotence is illogical or that there can be something above omnipotence. Metapotence is not a thing.

True Omnipotence can do the impossible such as "bigger than infinity", "making a squared circle" or "transcending itself."

It can do the impossible (depending on your frame of reference) but it cannot do the illogical. No "true omnipotent" or otherwise can create a square circle, because that's not a thing. Logic is not some arbitrary barrier that a fictional power is capable of transcending, it is literally the structure for us to understand and derive meaning from things. Without it, there is no meaning, and a meaningless illogical proposition can't have an affect on a debate (which is inseparable from logic) because there is no meaningful or logical way to apply those propositions.

but the wiki explaining omnipotence just said they do all the things you just said was illogical.

so yes they can surpass infinity by making bigger infinity. they can surpass themselves and become even more omnipotent. and they can make squared circle or triangle circles. Logic is not a limit for then want example go read Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou. Why is suggsverse getting pick on when animes like these do similar things.

Akuto Sai (Demon King Daimao) was able to overcome the previous gods and authors, even when he was once not the author and was bound to the story.Created every story that can be described including ones where beings like Akuto Sai himself can also create every story that can be described which forms an Infinite Hierarchy of abstract stories, His body is so big it surpasses all of existence and views the rest of the verse as mere fiction. He wrote the story he was in before he even existed!!!

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Akuto_Sai?file=Akuto_Sai.jpg#Akuto

@sergeantmuscle:

but the wiki explaining omnipotence just said they do all the things you just said was impossible.

What wiki?

so yes they can surpass infinity by making biggers infinity.

Then you're using the word infinity wrong.

become even more omnipotent.

Then you're using the word omnipotent wrong.

and they can make squared circle or triangle circles.

Then you're using the word "square" "triangle" and "circle" wrong.

Logic is not a limit for then

Then it has no place in a debate, which is based on logic. Or it's meaningless nonsense, or both.

He wrote the story he was in before he even existed!

Then you're using the word exist wrong.

Basically, you're saying sentences with words that are incoherent given the actual definitions of those words, in a debate based on logic. And then saying logic doesnt apply to you... also in a debate based on logic.

@deagonx: Maybe I didn't explain myself properly.

I agree with you, illogical things do not exist. Not everything that can be expressed with language is actually meaningful. I agree with you.

I don't agree with your definition of Omnipotence.

Creating an object so heavy that you cannot lift it is logically possible. Its only impossible for an omnipotent being. That is because of the nature or qualities of an omnipotent being.

Therefore you should change your definition to:

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible and does not contradict one's nature or qualities.

But this definition is utterly useless. A can of Coke has the ability to do anything that is logically possible and does not contradict a can of Coke's nature or qualities.

What you are looking for is a completely different definition. Modern theologians use the following definition:

Omnipotence is to have power over everything else in existence.

This is a very simple definition that avoids any issue of nature, qualities or property. It also avoids illogical things because they do not exist.

Now, here is what's funny about this definition. It leads to some incredibly weak omnipotent beings. For example there can be a fictional universe in which only a being and a cup exist. And if the being can break the cup, it by definition will be omnipotent. So you can have omnipotent beings that are cup or city level. This definition changes omnipotence from an ability to a status.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible and does not contradict one's nature or qualities.

But this definition is utterly useless. A can of Coke has the ability to do anything that is logically possible and does not contradict a can of Coke's nature or qualities.

This isn't an issue with the definition of omnipotence, this is a misunderstand about the term "logically possible." A can of coke can't do anything, not because of logical restriction, but a lack of ability. It has no abilities it's an inanimate object.

A human being can't do anything thats logically possible, because many logically possible things are physically impossible. An omnipotent has no physical limitations.

There's nothing inherently illogical about Superman flying or moving faster than light. It's physically impossible, but it's a perfectly reasonable proposition.

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Omnipotence

Seem like your definition conflicts hard with theirs. So is their definition not the right one. Do they lack the understanding you do? or is it the other way around? This is Loinel's point.

@sergeantmuscle:

this https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Omnipotence

Then the wiki is wrong.

or you are.

A dictionary can very easily resolve this misunderstanding on your part.

Seem like your definition conflicts hard with theirs. So is their definition not the right one. Do they lack the understanding you do? or is it the other way around? This is Loinel's point.

So his point is that some people understand omnipotence and some don't. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word lol.

@one_of_two:

And wrong, a can of coke has many abilities, it reflect light, it can hold liquid, it can be affected by the laws of nature.

The definition of the word "ability" is having the means or skill to "do" something. An inanimate object cannot act, and as such it cannot "do" anything at all.

It just cannot do things that are outside of its qualities or nature, just like an Omnipotent being cannot do things that are outside of its qualities or nature.

Sure? That doesn't really change the objective of this discussion. The only thing "outside the quality and nature" of an omnipotent are not really things at all. This isnt true for human beings.