Definitions of omnipotence

  • 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Yasindermann

I feel like I am obligated to make this thread because: What I can infer from my observation is is that people are really lost when it comes to the concept of omnipotence and cannot really give an adequate account for it's definition or the inferences made from said definition.

Most people define omnipotence like this:

  • The ability to do anything

A more philosophical and formal approach would look like this:

  • The ability to do any consistent task

OR

  • The ability to bring about any state of affairs

They are different in the sense that one definition talks about exercising power while the other one talks about effect. You could argue that they are identical as any action by an omnipotent would make that action true in virtue of it being actualised. (In this case, the state of affairs that are brought about will always succeed to obtain, i.e they will never be false in the actual world).

Many different subordinate definitions emerge from the above stated definitions which I will define here:

  • Infinite/essential omnipotence

Infinite omnipotence is the idea that an omnipotent entity can never deviate from his infinite/perfect nature, i.e he cannot perform task which imply a limit or an imperfection. This type of omnipotence is also called ''essential omnipotence''.

The reason why bringing up this definition is important is that most intuitive notions about omnipotence arise from it (For example, that an omnipotent is more powerful than any other entity) which is not necessarily the case when considering alternative definitions.

  • Contingent omnipotence

Contingent omnipotence is the idea that an omnipotent entity can perform actions which imply the loss of his omnipotence. This view is attributed to the french philosopher Rene Descartes. In particular, he argued that an omnipotent entity would be able to create necessary truths which he cannot violate afterwards.

  • CD omnipotence

CD omnipotence is the idea that an omnipotent can perform any kind of actions which allude to a consistent description. Under´this view, an omnipotent entity may surrender its power, destroy itself or perform any kind of task which implies a limitation because limitations, or, to be more specific, imperfections, are consistent tasks or states.

  • Absolute omnipotence

This is the only definition which is not entailed by the notion that an omnipotent can do what is logically possible, simply because this definition is the polar opposite of that. Proponents of absolute omnipotence argue that an omnipotent entity can bring about state of affairs or perform actions which are impossible (For instance, proponents of such a view would argue that an omnipotent can bring about states of affairs which entail that 2+2=8, or that bachelors are married).

I hope this could help.

Avatar image for mcflicky
McFlicky

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By McFlicky

The name is self-explanatory

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Yasindermann
@mcflicky said:

The name is self-explanatory

You think the issue is that simple? Also, the universal quantifier ''all'' is also very vague and must be specified.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By thopples

@mcflicky said:

The name is self-explanatory

The very concept of Omnipotence is a highly complicated issue that delves in all sorts of axioms as to how it works, multiple axioms that one cannot accept all is true at the same time.

It isn't that simple.

Do you think an Omnipotent can destroy itself? Yes or no? It's complicated.

Avatar image for the_metabee
The_MetaBee

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By The_MetaBee

i like the omnipotence that vsbattles has (Metapotence; the ability to defy logic and such) the rest all have paradoxes other than its orginal above all defintion.

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Yasindermann
@the_metabee said:

i like the omnipotence that vsbattles has (Metapotence) the rest all have paradoxes other than its orginal above all defintion.

I do not like to quote sites that specialize on fictional debates about omnipotence, since it is usually predicated on arbitrary rules. It is also the case that most of their notions are philosophically not well-founded. If by paradoxes you mean things like the ''stone paradox'', then this can be accounted for in various ways. I would argue that nowdays, it is just a stupid attempt at a ''gatcha'' and a strawman.

Also, I could not find anything on metapotence except for an article from powerlisting wiki. And a core characeristic of the concept seems to be that it is....well, paradoxical:

Metapotence is purely centered onOmnipotenceas the ability to "do absolutely anything and everything," rather than "being supremely almighty in every sense." Users are literally able to do anything,regardless of how contradictory or paradoxical it may be, and with ease,accomplish unquestionably impossible featsjust by wanting it.

I do not find such ideas feasible, as you would not be able to coherently talk about such an entity.

Also, what metapotence describes here is what I would call an illusory distinction. ''Do absolutely anything and everything'' and being ''supreme almighty in evers sense'' do not seem to be so much different from one another intuitively.

Heck, it even states at the beginning of the article that it is a simplified version of omnipotence.

the rest all have paradoxes other than its orginal above all defintion.

That depends. I usually draw a distinction between ''boundlessness'' and ''omnipotence'' so I will regard that statement as valid (Though an essential omnipotence entity can be said to be boundless). However, all the above stated definitions are there to account for the paradox of the stone, so you are barely engaging with the arguments here.

@the_metabee

Avatar image for mcflicky
McFlicky

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By McFlicky

@thopples: yes omnipotents can destroy themselves. And they also cannot

Avatar image for revold
Revold

2742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Omnipotence means the ability to do anything, that's it.

Some of the subordinate definitions are missing the point by describing what an Omnipotent God is like, instead of describing what the characteristic of Omnipotence is.

1. Infinite/essential omnipotence talks about the entity can never deviate from his infinite/perfect nature. That's missing the point because something without a will like a rock can be Omnipotent, yet be far from considered as "infinite" or "perfect" by any human definition.

Omnipotence =/= infinity/perfection/essentiality, period. Maybe the God you imagine may have multiple of these qualities, but they refer to different qualities nonetheless.

2. Contingent omnipotence and CD omnipotence talks about basically negating his own Omnipotence in the future. I don't see why not. However, his future self will no longer be considered Omnipotent. Again, the omnipotent being doesn't have to be timeless.

CD Omnipotence also talks about negating imperfections. Again, omnipotence is not about perfection.

3. Absolute Omnipotence talks about doing the impossible, such as making bachelors that are married. This definition is making a grave mistake that logic isn't something woven into the fabric of the Universe, but merely a tool humans create to convey ideas to other humans. If you purposely make nonsensical contradictions, you simply formulate words that corresponds to nothing in reality.

In conclusion, all the definitions here either completely misses the point of what they are suppose to do, or just plain wrong.

Avatar image for last0fth3risen
last0fth3risen

4658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By last0fth3risen

I would define true omnipotence as the ability to do anything, or bring about any state of affairs, in as much time, and with as much effort as one desires.

There have to be no limitations on it, such as making a wish, using specific hand gestures, or experiencing exertion after high-end feats. There should be absolutely no difference to an omnipotent being, between swatting a fly, and busting a universe.

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Yasindermann

Omnipotence means the ability to do anything, that's it.

This was actually a big point of contention of mine. It is a retarded and simplified definition that cannot really account for all definitions and conceptions of omnipotence and has to be specifically defined.

Omnipotence =/= infinity/perfection/essentiality, period. Maybe the God you imagine may have multiple of these qualities, but they refer to different qualities nonetheless.

''Multiple of these qualities'' The definitions here are mutually exclusive (I assume you refer to CD omnipotence), so an omnipotent entity cannot posess the properties at the same time.

In any case, here:

Yet, as Kenneth Pierce and Alexander Pruss argue, it is impossible that an essentially omnipotent being should fail

source: https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=72201529 (Page 5). This paper describe how an essential omnipotent cannot perform tasks which imply a limitation.

Also here:

This is similar to the Medieval suggestion since, according to classical theology, God is necessarily without defect or infirmity, so that, if the action A requires a defect or infirmity

https://iep.utm.edu/omnipote/#SH1a

2. Contingent omnipotenceandCD omnipotencetalks about basically negating his own Omnipotence in the future. I don't see why not. However, his future self will no longer be considered Omnipotent. Again, the omnipotent being doesn't have to be timeless.

The ''timeless'' thing is a strawman. In any case, I think this definition is feasible, yes. I agree with you here.

3. Absolute Omnipotencetalks about doing the impossible, such as making bachelors that are married. This definition is making a grave mistake that logic isn't something woven into the fabric of the Universe, but merely a tool humans create to convey ideas to other humans. If you purposely make nonsensical contradictions, you simply formulate words that corresponds to nothing in reality.

I think this ultimately relates back to a variety of metaphysical pre-suppositions like some form of lingual realism or some kind of philosophy which pre-suppose the existence of necessary truths (I.e, mathematical platonism). You could also make a pragmatic argument about the existence of logic.

Anyway, it seems like you literally assume that I talk about the plausability or soundness of such ideas which is utterly mistaken.

@revold

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Yasindermann
Avatar image for seventhmoon
SeventhMoon

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

i like the omnipotence that vsbattles has (Metapotence; the ability to defy logic and such) the rest all have paradoxes other than its orginal above all defintion.

This is the most incorrect comment here. Illogical omnipotence causes the most paradoxes because it is illogical. Omnipotence based on logic is what removes paradoxes. You have it backwards. And "metapotence" is a fake word that just renames omnipotence that doesn't abide by logic

@revold Your example of a rock being a perfect rock as a reason as to why perfection has nothing to do with omnipotence doesn't quite hold up. The word "perfection" in its truest sense without any additional context is lacking any flaws, which would include limitations of any kind, which would be omnipotence. Saying something like a circle is a perfectly drawn circle is using the word "perfection" with additional context that limits its overall scope. The circle is perfect in being what it's supposed to be, not perfect in the truest sense in all ways possible, which is to have no flaws/limitations of any kind.

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Yasindermann

1. Infinite/essential omnipotencetalks about the entity can never deviate from his infinite/perfect nature. That's missing the point because something without a will like a rock can be Omnipotent, yet be far from considered as "infinite" or "perfect" by any human definition.

You answered your own question. A rock would not be considered ''infinite'' or ''perfect'' by any capacity. When you talk about ''perfection'', there is room for flexibility because you can define perfection in multiple ways but in this case, I have specifically defined it so the problem does not actually hold up. Infinite also is not a property held by a rock so this is not applicable (And this in every sense).

You are trying to say that my definition is impractical via appealing to the supposed implications of it (That it may apply to any arbitrary entity) while I defined properties that are clearly not shared by everyday objects. If I made an ambigious statement, this might apply.

''Task which would imply a limit'' or ''more powerful than any other entity'' are also specific statemments so your argument is just a strawman. Maybe I was just not explicit enough though and in this case, I apologize.

The first statement makes to an implicit assumption: That the definition of ''infinite'' and ''perfection'' in this case refers to tasks rather than states (Which is another indicator that your example with rocks does not hold up). It pre-supposes agency which a rock does not have. You may appeal to entities which are conscious and are thus able to perform tasks but since I specified that an omnipotent is not able to do tasks which imply a limitation, you would again just argue against a strawman.

@revold

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By thopples

@revold:

Omnipotence by definition, MUST be timeless, must exist in a presentist time stream where it cannot time travel to a future or previous versions of itself where an Omnipotent can fight itself in the past or future, lest there be paradoxes.

An Omnipotents' will, consciousness and perception and experience of things must be indivisible and unified across ALL of Spacetime.

Avatar image for the_metabee
The_MetaBee

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is the most incorrect comment here. Illogical omnipotence causes the most paradoxes because it is illogical. Omnipotence based on logic is what removes paradoxes. You have it backwards. And "metapotence" is a fake word that just renames omnipotence that doesn't abide by logic


Any version of omnipotence is bound to be pulled from human logic (by your way of thinking); thinking illogical and logical in fiction might as well be as joke with human comprehension with these supernatural law altering abilties that supposedly have to abide by our logic and counters to it; and the term metapotence from vsbattles wiki is a favorite of mine for just being "Fuck traditional Logic" do we even have a defintive answer to what were calling omnipotence here?

To sumrise i dont see omnipotence as "I can do anything- but with restrictions" but in mypersonal way of viewing it; something attributing this would be how to interrupt omnipotence (even with this illogical fallacies what can you really do to a thing above human comprehension supposedly).

No Caption Provided

but im curious, what paradoxes are you talking about when we have "illogical" powers that (When Metapotence a coined term is described as; "Do absolutely anything/everything without justification and limitation.") don't even abide by our scientific logic and is only straying away from philospical things.

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Any version of omnipotence is bound to be pulled from human logic (by your way of thinking)

Yes, because this is the only way to coherently define its abstract predicates.

thinking illogical and logical in fiction might as well be as joke with human comprehension with these supernatural law altering abilties that supposedly have to abide by our logic and counters to it

''Supernatural abilities'' is a broad spectrum. If you refer to illogical abilities, then that is again not possible. If you refer to abilities which are regarded as being physically impossible, then this is a false equivocation as you equivocate logical impossibility to physical impossibility.

and the term metapotence from vsbattles wiki is a favorite of mine for just being "Fuck traditional Logic" do we even have a defintive answer to what were calling omnipotence here?

''Fuck traditional logic'' is ultimately akin to saying ''Fuck the concept which is necessary to coherently define objects so that we can talk about this object''. You cannot say ''fuck traditional logic'' if pre-supposing this concept is necessary in order to define entities. These laws are regarded as inescapable.

To sumrise i dont see omnipotence as "I can do anything- but with restrictions" but inmypersonalway of viewing it; something attributing this would be how to interrupt omnipotence (even with this illogical fallacies what can you really do to a thing above human comprehension supposedly).

Uhhhh....what? You cannot be beyond human comprehension. There may exist such an entity but it is impossible for us to talk about it. In any case, if you infered the supposed restrictions of omnipotence by me stating that an omnipotent cannot violate logic, then this notion is merely illusory because: It assumes that ''the laws of logic'' or ''violating the laws of logic'' are a subset of power when this is not the case. Anything, by definition, is a subset of logic.

but imcurious, what paradoxes are you talking about when we have "illogical" powers that (When Metapotence a coined term is described as; "Do absolutely anything/everything without justification and limitation.") don't even abide by our scientific logic and is only straying away from philospical things.

I have an absolute hard time interpreting this sentence. Anyway, you said ''scientific logic'' which assumes that the definition of logic is restricted to science which is not the case. Logic is everywhere, in everyday life, discourse, debates, philosophy and yes, even fictional universes. ''What paradoxes are you talking about when we have ''illogical powers'' It is INHERENTLY paradoxical. This is explicitly mentioned in its definition.

@the_metabe

Avatar image for seventhmoon
SeventhMoon

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By SeventhMoon

@the_metabee: Any version of omnipotence is bound to be pulled from human logic (by your way of thinking); thinking illogical and logical in fiction might as well be as joke with human comprehension with these supernatural law altering abilties that supposedly have to abide by our logic and counters to it

Debates are founded upon logic. Disregarding logic means there is no discussion to be had, since all discussions by humans involve logic. Altering laws and preforming metaphysical things is not an inherently illogical premise. Going beyond our known physical laws is not the same as breaking logic, especially when you consider that there could be universes or realities out there in real life with warped laws of physics. But the other guy explained this already.

and the term metapotence from vsbattles wiki is a favorite of mine

'Screw debating and logical analysis." Yeah, that definitely sounds like VS Wiki.

do we even have a defintive answer to what were calling omnipotence here?

Read the thread. It's discussing the difference types of omnipotence in philosophy, all of which fit the original definition of the word. The only one to disregard for debates is illogical omnipotence because debates are founded upon logical reasoning.

To sumrise i dont see omnipotence as "I can do anything- but with restrictions"

Did you even read what I said? Omnipotence following logic uses the axiom of illogical things not being able to exist and thus not being able to preform something that cannot exist is not a limitation.

but im curious, what paradoxes are you talking about when we have "illogical" powers that (When Metapotence a coined term is described as; "Do absolutely anything/everything without justification and limitation.") don't even abide by our scientific logic and is only straying away from philospical things.

Illogical things are to be disregarded in a debate because they make no sense. Or do you think the many bullshit claims made by Suggsverse are legitimate?

Avatar image for revold
Revold

2742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@thopples said:

@revold:

Omnipotence by definition, MUST be timeless, must exist in a presentist time stream where it cannot time travel to a future or previous versions of itself where an Omnipotent can fight itself in the past or future, lest there be paradoxes.

An Omnipotents' will, consciousness and perception and experience of things must be indivisible and unified across ALL of Spacetime.

I disagree. Omnipotent beings has the ability to make themselves timeless, but nobody says they have to be timeless by definition. I fail to see any paradox because one talks about the potential of being anything, the other talks about an actual state of being something.

Avatar image for revold
Revold

2742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@revold Your example of a rock being a perfect rock as a reason as to why perfection has nothing to do with omnipotence doesn't quite hold up. The word "perfection" in its truest sense without any additional context is lacking any flaws, which would include limitations of any kind, which would be omnipotence. Saying something like a circle is a perfectly drawn circle is using the word "perfection" with additional context that limits its overall scope. The circle is perfect in being what it's supposed to be, not perfect in the truest sense in all ways possible, which is to have no flaws/limitations of any kind.

1. Infinite/essential omnipotencetalks about the entity can never deviate from his infinite/perfect nature. That's missing the point because something without a will like a rock can be Omnipotent, yet be far from considered as "infinite" or "perfect" by any human definition.

You answered your own question. A rock would not be considered ''infinite'' or ''perfect'' by any capacity. When you talk about ''perfection'', there is room for flexibility because you can define perfection in multiple ways but in this case, I have specifically defined it so the problem does not actually hold up. Infinite also is not a property held by a rock so this is not applicable (And this in every sense).

You are trying to say that my definition is impractical via appealing to the supposed implications of it (That it may apply to any arbitrary entity) while I defined properties that are clearly not shared by everyday objects. If I made an ambigious statement, this might apply.

''Task which would imply a limit'' or ''more powerful than any other entity'' are also specific statemments so your argument is just a strawman. Maybe I was just not explicit enough though and in this case, I apologize.

The first statement makes to an implicit assumption: That the definition of ''infinite'' and ''perfection'' in this case refers to tasks rather than states (Which is another indicator that your example with rocks does not hold up). It pre-supposes agency which a rock does not have. You may appeal to entities which are conscious and are thus able to perform tasks but since I specified that an omnipotent is not able to do tasks which imply a limitation, you would again just argue against a strawman.

@revold

Ok it might be misunderstanding on my part since I understood perfection to include other qualities that a perfect being should possess such as Omniscience, Omnipresence etc. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it refers to merely being perfectly Omnipotent?

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Yasindermann

Ok it might be misunderstanding on my part since I understood perfection to include other qualities that a perfect being should possess such as Omniscience, Omnipresence etc. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it refers to merely being perfectly Omnipotent?

I think that this is precisely what I would argue actually. Though ''having all knowledge'' may not really refer to tasks (Maybe you could say that an omnipotent can obtain all knowlede though, which is a different claim). This dinstinction is important so we do not make any categorical errors.

''Perfectly omnipotent'' Preceisely, yes, though ''perfectly omnipotent'' would have to be defined more. I guess what you could say is that an omnipotent includes all perfections (If you argue from a thomestic perspective), so he would be the class of all perfections. The reason I am saying this is because if you say that something is ''perfectly omnipotent'', there has to be something that distinguishes them from other ''perfect'' entities to avoid any ambiguity. This further solidifies that an omnipotent entity is ''perfect'' and ''infinite''. The definition is not restricted to something specific. When we then restrict our definitions to tasks, what that would imply is is that an omnipotent entity can participate in any kind of activity to a perfect degree.

I say ''class'' so I avoid Russels paradox.

It seems like that under a thomestic worldview, an omnipotent entity is the archetype of ''perfection''. I think this is the best way to describe such an entity.

I think that Thomestic omnipotence is a great account for omnipotence as it can withstand many ancient and contemporary and ancient objections.

@revol

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By thopples
@momoshikiwin2 said:

cringe, no character in fiction is omnipotent

layers>omnipotence

Omnipotence > Layers

See how easy I can do it?

Just ask any Philosopher worth their salt.

Yet again, this is the full limits of "intelligence" you can get from the Houseofideas.

Lol. House of """"""Ideas"""""""" ie. Outerversalism group with no original thought of actual insight but edgier.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By thopples
@yasindermann said:

Ok it might be misunderstanding on my part since I understood perfection to include other qualities that a perfect being should possess such as Omniscience, Omnipresence etc. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it refers to merely being perfectly Omnipotent?

snip

@revol

You can avoid the Russel's Paradox by not accepting the Axiom of Regularity, ie. you can have X set whose element is only itself.

@revold said:
@thopples said:

I disagree. Omnipotent beings has the ability to make themselves timeless, but nobody says they have to be timeless by definition. I fail to see any paradox because one talks about the potential of being anything, the other talks about an actual state of being something.

If an Omnipotent is bound by some form of geometric spacetime, they can time travel to the future, meet a version of themselves that is also Omnipotent, then fight themselves and thus debunking their own Omnipotence. We cannot allow for Omnipotent beings to be multiplied and divided across spacetime in one verse as time flows. We can only have one Omnipotent being observing past, present and future all simultaneously.

So by definition, you can only have Omnipotents that are experiencing a Presentist temporality separate and working totally differently, metaphysically and ontologically from the rest of creation that functions under some form of Growing Block Theory or Eternalism while the Omnipotent exists only in its own Presentism time stream.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

omnipotent with no anti feat just means someone of great power in a verse and above everyone in that verse at best

That's not the definition of Omnipotence, try again.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By thopples
@momoshikiwin2 said:

no one in fiction is omnipotent, try again

still means above everyone in verse at best

Bucko, all Infinities are physically the same size. One verse having an Absolute infinite amount of layers is the same as a verse with just 1 infinite layer because you cannot define a sum over an uncountable set of real numbers and it feedbacks only a countable set, so volume speaking, all infinite fictions are the same size.

So even if I entertained your Horseshitofideas nonsense, it redounds to accepting Omnipotence is just infinite power above everyone else in their verse and a return to accepting a maximal power level at best.

Copy?

Avatar image for yasindermann
Yasindermann

135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By Yasindermann

You can avoid the Russel's Paradox by not accepting the Axiom of Regularity, ie. you can have X set whose element is only itself.

I agree. I just think that ''the class of all perfections'' was better to bring my point across and more practical in order to define the thomestic notion of an omnipotent being. This is not a disagreement.

@thopple

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By thopples
@momoshikiwin2 said:

@thopples: layers are fodder, try again

no fictional character is omnipotence, just means strongest in verse at best

Ah, so what is the most powerful character in fiction according to you? Let's see if I can tear it apart.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By thopples
@momoshikiwin2 said:

kaguya, dual eye rinnegan jyuubidara, and eos naruto and sasuke

cope

All Universe level characters in fiction are stronger than those "Omnipotents" so you agree that all Universe+ characters are Omnipotent then. And since all Infinities are preferredly assumed the same across all fiction.

Gotcha

Avatar image for forgivemegod
forgivemegod

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think there is no correct definition for omnipotent , in a fictional setting an author is free to define “omnipotent“ as in what he thinks it is and not what it actually is.

Avatar image for forgivemegod
forgivemegod

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@momoshikiwin2:

(so I go by the default, omnipotence=unstoppable in their verse)

Sir , I think intuitively most authors go by this definition .

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@momoshikiwin2:

(so I go by the default, omnipotence=unstoppable in their verse)

Sir , I think intuitively most authors go by this definition .

Don't bother.

Just... don't bother reasoning with the troll. Don't feed the troll.

Avatar image for thopples
thopples

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By thopples
@forgivemegod said:

I think there is no correct definition for omnipotent , in a fictional setting an author is free to define “omnipotent“ as in what he thinks it is and not what it actually is.

I agree there isn't, but there are ways to broadly categorize the different ways a character can be Omnipotent.

In fiction, some Omnipotents may or may not be able to kill themselves, so this demands either CD Omnipotence or Contingent Omnipotence.

Some Omnipotents are absolutely essential and eternal, and thus cannot destroy themselves so we have to vouch for Divine Omnipotence.

Of course, any fiction can define a different way one can be Omnipotent, if it's too distinct from the described by Yas, all we need to do is add another version of Omnipotence to the list.

Avatar image for cosmic_reign
cosmic_reign

68

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revold said:
@thopples said:

@revold:

Omnipotence by definition, MUST be timeless, must exist in a presentist time stream where it cannot time travel to a future or previous versions of itself where an Omnipotent can fight itself in the past or future, lest there be paradoxes.

An Omnipotents' will, consciousness and perception and experience of things must be indivisible and unified across ALL of Spacetime.

I disagree. Omnipotent beings has the ability to make themselves timeless, but nobody says they have to be timeless by definition. I fail to see any paradox because one talks about the potential of being anything, the other talks about an actual state of being something.

☝️

Avatar image for the_metabee
The_MetaBee

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

but imcurious, what paradoxes are you talking about when we have "illogical" powers that (When Metapotence a coined term is described as; "Do absolutely anything/everything without justification and limitation.") don't even abide by our scientific logic and is only straying away from philospical things.

I have an absolute hard time interpreting this sentence. Anyway, you said ''scientific logic'' which assumes that the definition of logic is restricted to science which is not the case. Logic is everywhere, in everyday life, discourse, debates, philosophy and yes, even fictional universes. ''What paradoxes are you talking about when we have ''illogical powers'' It is INHERENTLY paradoxical. This is explicitly mentioned in its definition.




basically, you have nothing to prove the "illogical" thing cant exist and have to use philosophical ideas to contradict something that is setting itself apart from it? (let alone not answering the question i prosed other than "We have to comprehend to have an argument" when im arguing to be all-powerful without flaws is to be above human judgment I.E Human question and understanding, you only tackle the facts and ideas you can comprehend and just fail at the rest when trying to change my opinion).

But i pose another question; what does this idea have that is contradictory other than the idea that it exists.

Also isn't it funny when we have something beyond (our) comprehension it is subject to being called paradoxes?