Can there be 2 omnipotent beings in the same Verse?

@lpercepts: extra Dimensional Entities where?We Don't even know if Aliens exists or not.

@galactic_1000: Do we "know" if omnipotent beings exist?

@lpercepts: No.But We Make God As our Omnipotent being Some think He can do do that is logically possible Some think He can do anything even Impossible (Well If he can do Impossible that means It's not impossible it's possible)

I already said nothing was impossible to an omnipotent being.

@lpercepts: That means You don't think about this deeply.The Contradiction & Paradoxes.

Ignoring other words actual meaning To support Omnipotent that he can do anything.

@galactic_1000: I did think deeply about it. It means I'm disputing the arguments you are forwarding.

@lpercepts: Sure you will.Well you have been familiar with That Omnipotent (Can do anything)

It will take time to get out of it.

It also happened to me Though after seeing @nemesisreloaded: Omnipotent's arguments I changed my mind.

@galactic_1000: In what way did you change your mind?

@lpercepts: https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/can-an-omnipotent-being-create-a-rock-that-they-th-1878506/?page=3. Read @nemesisreloaded: Posts

@galactic_1000: Post 118 in that thread is what I was trying to say the whole time.

Yes because an omnipotent being can make another being omnipotent without giving up their omniotence

Saying they can’t goes against the very definition of omnipotence

@lpercepts: He just ignore everything & Say he's Omnipotent.

I can call someone Omnipotent if he's all powerful or someone who can do anything that is logically possible.

If we follow All powerful meaning There can be only one Omnipotent being no matter what.

If we follow who can anything that is logically possible then there can be Multiple Omnipotents.

No, I don't think so. It would take away the definition and defeat the entire purpose of omnipotence if there's 2 omnipotents in a universe.

if at one point, the being made that rock and can't move it

And at that very point since he couldn't move it, he is not omnipotent.

Your own point denies the existence of Omnipotent being doing illogical things.

@ignvela: No, my point is that he made the rock he couldn't move, so he is omnipotent by doing it, then he moved it, and thus, he is omnipotent by doing that. My point does not deny illogicality on the part of an omnipotent being, it's simply that because he is omnipotent, he can do both things and not cause a paradox. The only thing, really, my point denies is the existence of such a paradox in the first place.

@ignvela: Yes, an omnipotent being can destroy omnipotent logic, but he can recreate it. I did not claim that an omnipotent being needed to be bound by human logic or any sort of logic for that matter. If the omnipotent being can make the rock he couldn't move, then later moves it, then both are products of his omnipotence, which by nature of being able to do anything, doens't necessarily mean he must obey logic. I did not say the rock was immovable. An omnipotent being could reverse whatever made the rock immovable and then move it, or he could change his own nature so that he can move it, hence he can make the rock because he is omnipotent, but because he is omnipotent, he can move it. Of course, given that I assert an omnipotent being is not bound by logic, my argument must make an illogical turn simply due to that fact.

At this point we are just repeating ourselves. Ill end my part in this discussion once again repeating what i said.

It doesn't matter that he moves the rock later, the point being is he couldn't move that rock (immovable rock) and at that part is where his omnipotence is shown to not exist, omnipotent doesn't mean "able to do everything even illogical but its okay to not be able to do one thing as long as you can do it later"

NO.

You can't even have one, but if we define a maximally powerful being as omnipotent from a human perspective (i.e. only non-abstract power) then you cannot have two maximally powerful beings for the obvious reason: what if they contradict each other?

Yes there can be. Contrary to popular belief.

Two Omnipotents that are not binded to non-paradoxical and logical limitations can exist, given it's really two Gods in one God and one God in two Gods. In other words, an Omnipotent can multiply its "personality" into infinity, each running its own independent instance of Omnipotence and they never fight each other because they're all just the same Omnipotent.

See the Trinity Doctrine in Christianity and how they deal with the Three Omnipotents thing.

My definition of Omnipotents is a fluid, progressive and conservative one in fiction. Omnipotents cannot be binded to non-paradoxical limitations, any limitations you think they have is never exploitable by any non-Omnipotent. If one believes in Eldritch, Paradoxical Omnipotence in fiction then it includes this anyway.

Asking Omnipotents to do Paradoxes that don't make sense and will never happen does not really disprove its peak of power in imaginative fiction, since paradoxes is not a form and is thereby not a "power". Omnipotence means All Power, and doing paradoxes that don't serve a function, therefore not a power, is not a power in my opinion, since Paradoxes are meaningless. Omnipotents do not need to be subject to the criticism of Paradoxes to be Omnipotent.

People think way too hard about this. As if, just because TOAA can probably not create a rock it cannot lift without logic manipulation, therefore Jar Jar Binks can defeat TOAA. It's getting ridiculous. Sure, maybe TOAA can't, but he still has the Omni-Infinite power good enough to destroy and solo all non-Omnis in fiction so I don't see how this is relevant. Criticism of Omnipotence has very little to do with serious constructive debate and more to do with "I don't like this character, its illogical to me therefore it will lose!".

You will notice criticism against Omnipotents is an opinion promoted mostly by Anime and Manga fans. The same people who think non-Omnipotents can be beyond the concept of death, then those Characters get killed. Nobody actually believes in logical conclusions in fiction, they only use it against a character they don't like but throw logic out the window when it comes to their fav character whose power runs on Author Fiat as well.

If people are wise enough to agree Omniscients and Omnipresents exist in fiction and never once apply NLFs to those concepts, I don't see why Omnipotence can't exist in fiction especially when we speak of Omnipotents in fiction that everyone knows they cannot come to life. Anyone who understands Omnipotence as an idea despite rejecting it, only proves and confirms Omnipotence can exist in fiction.

This thread

An omnipotent isn’t bound to human rules of logic or language. So yes, They could.

It just wouldn’t make sense.

There's two types of omnipotence:

Strong Omnipotence: This is the ability to do all and everything, with no limits whatsoever

Weak Omnipotence: This is the ability do do all and everything that is logically possible. This is the type of omnipotence that's shown in comics/anime, and the type of omnipotence also shown in religions. This is also the type of omnipotence that is paradoxical by nature(Such as creating a rock so heavy you can't lift, etc). Those analogies won't work on a being with "Strong Omnipotence"

When it comes to Strong Omnipotence, there can be more than one omnipotent being. In fact there could be an infinite amount of omnipotent beings, as this type of omnipotence does not abide by the rules of logic. It defies them. So a "strong" omnipotent being could create a square-circle, or make 2+2=44 for example. They can do absolutely anything and everything, even create other omnipotent beings or co-exist with them. A good way to think about this is to imagine a open-source project with multiple programmers with all the same permissions. Each programmer has the exact same rights and abilities to do anything to the project as the other. They can choose to co-exist and help each other, or ruin another's work(But the other programmer who's work was ruined can simply reupload everything that was there originally-assuming it's saved elsewhere of course).

However, "Strong Omnipotents" can overpower each other. For example: Omnipotent #1 is constantly using an infinite amount of power. Omnipotent #2 is relaxing/holding back and not using nearly as much power as Omnipotent #1. Omnipotent #2 decides at this point to destroy Omnipotent #2, and he succeeds as at that point as Omnipotent #1 is using his reserves of an infinite amount of power against Omnipotent #2, who's using nearly nothing. This event is only possible in the scenario that these omnipotent beings are not always using an infinite amount of power at all times, even though they have the ability to use said infinite power at any time they choose to.

When it comes to Weak Omnipotence, the omnipotent being can only abide by the laws of logic. Thus, in this case there can only be One Omnipotent being, as there can be nothing more powerful than something or someone that is all powerful; according to logic. This sort of omnipotence is shown in most religions and comics today.

"Strong" Omnipotence is true omnipotence and is ultimately beyond the comprehension of us. We as human beings can't fathom what it's like to break the rules of logic, math, etc. All of these things are entirely illogical to us and so a truly omnipotent being is the most complex concept imaginable. This is the reason why the vast majority of displays of "omnipotence" in fiction is based on Weak Omnipotence, as that type of omnipotence is logically consistent with the way we as humans view things. It's the only sort of "omnipotence" that is relatable to us

I don't think concepts such as singular or plural can even be applied to omnipotence.

There will be if Cap and Arrow meet in the MCU and CW crossover.

@tethadam said:

The Presence, The Source, The Voice, and The Hand are all just different aspects of the same thing

Yeah

I keep seeing this "break logic" argument that people keep coming up with.

There are actually three types of Omnipotence that most people talk about:

Absolute Omnipotence

The power to do anything. The user can redefine concepts, alter truth, and anything possible or impossible, including nonsensical gibberish like vuwrh qlbaansl. This naive form of Omnipotence literally cannot exist, even in principle. Even if it somehow does exist, it is still meaningless for us to talk about because we literally can't say anything about him. Let's say I claim that this Omnipotent being is Omnipotent. Even when this statement logically have to be true 100% of the time, the Omnipotent being can just be Omnipotent and not Omnipotent at the same time! What's the point? To us, it's just nonsense, and there is no meaning in holding on to this definition.

True / Literal Omnipotence

The power to do anything that is logically possible. This being cannot do things that doesn't make sense, such as vuwrh qlbaansl, or things that is impossible in principle or by definition, such as being an non-Omnipotent Omnipotent, or making a square circle (check their definition). But does that violate the definition of being all-powerful? Not at all. The Omnipotent being isn't bounded by human logic whatsoever, the fault lies on us and our imperfect language system for giving an arbitrarily-defined request that simply doesn't exist in reality. If there is no us and there is no language, vuwrh qlbaansl, square circles, will also vanish together with us. They are problems that we created for ourselves, and the existence of such Omnipotence wouldn't be bothered with these problems.

Practical / Maximal Omnipotence

Can an Omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift? This is just one iteration of the Omnipotence paradox. The difference between this and creating a square circle is that this isn't an inherently impossible feat simply from its definition. It is impossible because of its Omnipotence. You may claim that an Unstoppable Force logically contradicts an Immovable Object, but it doesn't. In philosophy, a universe is a just any logically possible scenario. I can imagine an universe whereby an Unstoppable Force exists (or can exist), and another universe whereby a Immovable Object exists (or can exist), but not a universe with both together. This is the proof of practical impossibility. An unstoppable force may not exist in one universe due to some laws of nature that we do not need to understand to deduce that it does not exist simply due to the existence of Immovable Object. This is logic as a method of proof, not logic as the reason for not existing. In fact, you can have a universe whereby eating orange is practically impossible, and it's perfectly fine. It's just that we have no way of using reason to go about proving it.

A True Omnipotent would be able to do that which is practically impossible, but Practical Omnipotent cannot. Practical Omnipotence depends on the laws of nature of its universe/fictional domain. Some Practical Omnipotent beings can eat orange, some cannot, but none of them Practical Omnipotent beings can create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift. The same rule applies to "Can an Omnipotent create another Omnipotent", since it's just another variation of the Omnipotence paradox.

@revold: We are talking about fiction and comicbooks at that.

"the Omnipotent being can just be Omnipotent and not Omnipotent at the same time! What's the point? To us, it's just nonsense, and there is no meaning in holding on to this definition."

Why is it nonsense? What difference does it make?

"Can an Omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift?"

What difference does it make whether he can or cannot?

"Can an Omnipotent create another Omnipotent", since it's just another variation of the Omnipotence paradox.

So what?

You seem to be talking like those Priests of that Religion which is called Atheism.

This is fiction, Omnipotence paradox doesn't hold any value here. Also, Omnipotence paradox doesn't hold any value in real life either, these are just concepts far beyond our understanding. And this is philosophical, it is not something that can or is suppose to be understood by mathematical logic or science

No, that'd not make sense.

Well yea I'm talking for the purpose of comics too. I did not elaborate here because it would be too long, I just thought I'd settle the core principles which is the most important and the part that already had many confused as hell.

It means that no point you make no longer holds true. Even if you say "This Omnipotent can break logic" can turn false. Whatever you claim will no longer make sense. Try talking about it. It is the literal definition of "nonsense". I don't get what you mean by difference.

I'm not sure what's your question. If you are asking what's the difference between True Omnipotence and Practical Omnipotence, it is two different ideas of what Omnipotence is (and consequently what it can do).

Atheism is the absence of belief in a supreme/higher being(s) commonly-named God/gods. While God is normally attributed with Omnipotence, talking about God and Omnipotence itself are two different things. I don't see how am I disproving the existence of God here, nor anything religiously related. And who are the Priests of the "religion of Atheism"? Do you mean philosophers? Scientists? Politicians? Who are these "priest" of atheism? And which part of what I said sound like one?

I'm talking about the concept of Omnipotence itself. Whether you want to apply it to comics or religion is up to you, but it doesn't change what I'm talking about here. In my opinion, the Omnipotence paradox is not a "concept" "far beyond our understanding". It is a thought experiment made up by humans to inspire your critical thinking with intuitive scenarios. It is not Black Holes or rocket science out there, but a problem created by ourselves.

I don't recall using any mathematics or scientific knowledge here.

@revold:

Here is what I meant by all that I said. According to our comprehension, omnipotence is also anti-omnipotence, like that example "Can an Omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift?". So, whether it'd be "Practical Omnipotence" or "True Omnipotence", we will never know the answer to that question, because to our understanding if the answer to the question is yes, then he is not omnipotent and if the answer is no, then also he is not omnipotent. but what if there is some other answer that we just can't comprehend. And that is what I meant when I said that concept like omnipotence paradox is beyond our understanding, because whilst we imagine an all-powerful being, we are still not able to comprehend all aspects of it, it is a thought experiment, sure, but it is one where we are limited by our mind to properly get to a conclusion.

Also, I didn't mean any offense by saying you are like "Priests of that Religion which is called Atheism". By that what I meant was, that I've often seen atheists use the same argument to disprove an omnipotent being in real life and you are using to disapprove of any omnipotent being in a fiction. I know what Atheism is, it is a belief that there is no higher power(an all-powerful being), but that is what it is a BELIEF and like any other belief there are some people in it who preach its values and Omnipotence paradox is one of those values. Anyway I wasn't trying to get political/religious with it, I was just using that word to make a point. And no scientists are not "priests" of Atheism, because science and religion are two different things, not opposite, just different. Science is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is not something that can be used to contradict religion and neither religion is something that can be used to contradict science.

By "mathematical logic or science", I meant that there is probably no logical answer to the question of omnipotent paradox, because both yes and no will give you the same results, so, what I meant was that the answer has to be in some philosophical form.

Now that you've phrased it that way, yes I agree that the existence of Omnipotence is beyond our comprehension. The whole idea is that if the answer to that question is "yes" then we define that kind as True Omnipotence and if it is "no" then we will define that kind as Practical Omnipotence. I do not claim to know the answer, but at least we can categorise them.

No offense taken. I think I can understand your points much better now, and I do agree with what you are saying here. Though some people do believe that Absolute Omnipotence, the one beyond logic, is impossible even in fiction since no amount of feats or evidence can showcase or prove the distinction. Well, I referenced the Omnipotence paradox is not to prove whether Omnipotence can exist. It is to differentiate the types of Omnipotence that different people conceptualise. I don't focus on what is the real answer, but the differences in the types that arose from the two answers.

Well yes I agree with this as well.

Of course.

@undefined: Dr.Manhattan and The Presence...

What kind of questions is this? Dear God...

Did you just say Dr.Manhattan? Please, tell me you are joking

He's been theorised in Doomsday Clock to have made everything including himself, and The Presence.

@thepunisherfan: hmmm, interesting, do you have any references?

That, my friend, is a paradox and we shouldn’t think about things like that

@mega6382: Yes give me a few hours to post. I will message you when I’m done okay bud!

No.

@thepunisherfan: did you find it?

Yes.

God-Man and God-God-Man.