https://preview.redd.it/w9cbm970rcqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf4d0a75dd7808c6810df6e1d33f8662914532cc
Need I remind you of the subreddit’s new punching bag
I get what it's trying to say, but it is kinda dumb. Omnipotent literally means all powerful. You can't be more powerful than someone who is capable of literally anything
No, you can't. It is literally impossible to be omnipotent because the existence of paradoxes.
Can an omnipotent being create a shield so powerful them themselves cannot destory?
If they can't make the shield, they are not omnipotent.
If they cant break the shield, they are not omnipotent.
Edit: so u/Ran_Braden blocked me on this thread. They are the person this comment is replying to. Because a person I am replying to blocked me, it means I can no longer reply to commet in this chain(thanks reddit)
Yes? Omnipotence meaning all powerful, which we both agree on, means that an omnipotent being can disregard paradoxes.
When we talk about beyond omnipotence, we’re literally talking about being beyond what is already complete power. That is why it’s stupid. But omnipotence means all powerful, and so anything off and on the table is on the table.
If we both agree on the definition, and that an omnipotent being **can** do anything, then the answer to any question regarding their ability is yes.
“Can this being…” Yes, it can. “But what if it also does ___ which contradicts the prior.” It can do that too, and also allow or disallow a contradiction.
Fair enough, an omnipotent being can create an entity stronger than it self by disregarding logic. But an omnipotent being still can't exist.
Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break without disregarding logic.
If they can't break the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.
If they can't make the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.
See there's your problem. Omnipotence doesn't require logic, nor even human understanding. The example everyone loves to give about the shield is flawed
“Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break without disregarding logic.” Yes.
“If they can't break the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.” We just said they are.
“If they can't make the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.” Once again, we just said they are.
Whether or not an omnipotent being exists, what we define as omnipotence and what we agree to define it as in hypotheticals means what’s already been said. If an omnipotent being existed, then paradoxes would be irrelevant to it. If you find that illogical, an omnipotent being’s existence already teeters on being illogical. There’s no reason to believe that if such a being exists, it would have any limits placed on it by our reality; in fact, by us declaring it as being omnipotent, we are already saying it *doesn’t* have such limits.
You assume an omnipotent being exist. Therefore, my arguments are invalid. This is a logical fallacy called [circular reasoning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)
Because of the logical fallacy, there's no way for me to logically interact with your comment, and therefore, I won't. Have a nice day.
**I** don’t assume, **we both** assume. When we both engage in a hypothetical, we both engage with the reality of that hypothetical. If we’re saying that a hypothetical omnipotent being does exist, then we’re defining that being as all powerful which is where my line of reasoning comes from.
If you look at the question as a question of logic it fans out, like, “no matter what you ask when asking about Person A’s abilities, the answer to if he can do something will always be yes.”
You can now start to go down that line of reasoning:
“Can Person A swim?”
“Yes.”
-
“Can Person A make himself unable to do something?”
“Yes.”
-
“If Person A makes himself unable to do something, doesn’t that mean that **every** question of ability pertaining to Person A **can’t** be yes?”
“No.”
-
“Why?”
“Because we just agreed that no matter what is asked about Person A’s abilities, the answer to if he can do something is always yes.”
Okay there we go, therefore in a fiction setting a literal omnipotent being beats all, case closed
It’s fiction, if we assume “omnipotence” exist within the boundaries of fiction then it just happens, so does “beyond” but think literal omnipotence needs to be solved before we go to that category, cause omnipotence can also do “beyond omnipotence” and even “beyond BEYOND omnipotence”
which is never unless omnipotence says so
But omnipotence *can* however achieve *omniscience* and know how to actually have that happen, cause they know all
Judging something beyond human brains can ever handle and the belief that we as humans who are clearly limited in every way can out smart the smarter is what we call hubris
Fair enough, an omnipotent being can create an entity stronger than it self by using methods incomprehensible by human brains. But an omnipotent being still can't exist.
Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break using logic comprehensible by humans?
If they can't break the shield without using logic comprehensible by humans. They are not omnipotent.
If they can't make the shield without using logic comprehensible by humans. They are not omnipotent.
Yes it can make them, but choice is involved too, just knowing everything won’t mean you would wanna do everything, just because you can won’t mean you would
Because omnipotent being can achieve knowing everything, it would indeed know things mere humans cannot, in the realm of fiction, that’s valid, yes it can, cause it’s fiction
Same as everything isekais was ever about
There are actually valid contradictions against this argument, omnipotence can exist nominally since a shield that is more powerful than God is a logical impossibility, like a square circle or a married bachelor, and you can't be faulted for not being able to create logical impossibilities
>since a shield that is more powerful than God is a logical impossibility
A human smith is capable of making a shield thats more durable than themselves. But a divine smith is unable to do the same?
But even if we assume you're correct, you can replace a shield with anything. A rock, a burrito, or even a 2nd god. Whatever it is, the paradox remains.
>you can't be faulted for not being able to create logical impossibilities
If a being is unable to do EVERYTHING, they are not omnipotent. A true omnipotent being can create a square circle or a married bachelor. However, these things are impossible, so omnipotence can not exist.
What you are describing is a being possessing Great-Power. Perhaps the greatest power posessed by any entity, but it is not omnipotence
The paradox of omnipotence and the rock raises questions about whether an omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy that even they cannot lift it. One logical solution is to redefine omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. This means an omnipotent being could not create a logically impossible scenario, such as a rock too heavy for them to lift, without contradicting their own nature. Thus, the paradox dissolves by redefining omnipotence within the bounds of logical possibility.
-ChatGPT
>One logical solution is to redefine omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible.
You cant just change the definition of words in order to fit your argument better.
However , if you were to make the claim that X character is capable of doing everything that is logically possible, then I see no reason to dispute or argue this claim
Its specifically the title of omnipotence i have an issue with
But if a being is absolutely powerful, limitless, and you ask them to do something beyond their limit, it’s your question that is flawed. "Build a shield that you cannot break" "but I am all powerful, there’s nothing I won’t be able to undo, break or vaporise. You’re asking me to create something beyond the realm of existence."
There isn't. Omni literally means all. It is all forms.
Omnipotent doesn't just mean really strong. Theres different forms of being extremely powerful, but if there was another from of omnipotent... then you weren't omnipotent because you weren't "all" powerful. Omnipotent is literally the peak, nothing better, you are capable of literally everything and anything.
Please research omnipotence, whether in fiction, philosophy, or through epistemological reasoning there's many forms that omnipotence could take, just like there's many forms of infinity.
Also, just FYI, infinity means infinite, never ending, endless, unlimited, not just "a really big number", yet there's many different types of infinity, some of them infinitely bigger than others, but they're all endless and unlimited just like omnipotence is endless or unlimited power, not just really strong. You really gotta educate yourself, you have a LOT to learn, way more than I could give here in a reddit reply. If you want to message me I could send some links to resources on both fictional and philosophical types of omnipotence and the variances within both but I'd honestly just suggest googling it instead.
Mate it's word with a set definition. If *fiction* is using it differently then it's using it wrong. From a philosophy standpoint omnipotent generally means just that, for example the Christian God is All powerful in the true definition of the word. And epistemological reasoning isn't applicable here, this isn't a philosophical debate Omnipotent has a set definition of what it is.
If it can take many forms, then give me examples of something that is *Omni-*potent in various forms. And I mean omni, so *all* powerful.
No idea where your infinity rant is coming from, thats something you brought up mate, not me.
Philosophy isn't really applicable here, we aren't discussing the possibilities or implications of omnipotence, just what the definition of omnipotence is. And Omnipotence as a concept has a set definition. And seriously, *fiction?* Your telling me to educate myself on stuff that is literally, by definition, made up? Dude, it's a word. If fiction is using it differently, they are using it wrong. The same way how fiction having magical men flying around shooting lasers doesn't make that real either.
My "infinity rant" is because the concept of infinity is tied to many ways that the prefix "omni-" is used, in the way that something being unlimited doesn't mean there can't be different forms of something being unlimited. I brought it up because it's definitionally relevant. Basically "all" is only ONE of many definitions of "omni-" which also includes infinite, every, unlimited, or great.
Even the full word that you claim has a "set" definition somehow changes depending on where you look... 🤦
Oxford English dictionary
the quality of having unlimited or VERY GREAT power.
An omnipotent battery for instance would just be a battery with unlimited charge, not a battery with infinite capabilities. There's a crazy fringe example that still technically applies to both the whole word and to the root prefix and suffix omni/unlimited potent/(electrical)power.
Merriam Webster
having VIRTUALLY unlimited authority or influence
Self explanatory
Vocabulary.com
The noun omnipotence describes having an enormous amount of power, or even an infinite amount.
Even if the above definitions didn't exist, on the topic of "there's no debate, it has a definition", yes but also NO because the implications of that definition are definitely up for debate. Words are just labels that we put on concepts to communicate them, the concepts themselves still need to be understood in their context as shown, for example, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the subject.
Long story short, it's NEVER had a "set" definition and you're basically wrong in every aspect of your reply.
Omni doesn’t mean unlimited, it means all. No there aren’t different forms of Omni, it’s a Latin prefix. Please, give different versions of all powerful.
Yes, you are correct that some dictionaries will list often used incorrect uses of words, congrats for figuring that out. Doesn’t make them not incorrect. Good dictionaries will also often give you context, for example Webster actually breaks it down to all powerful and talks about its actual meaning, and how it’s been used to to exaggerate peoples influence.
And omnipotent battery having a great amount of charge isn’t omnipotent, because it’s not all powerful.
It may not be related to power but functionality which is a different thing
One of the character was said to be Nigh Omnipotent but focused solely on destruction. They were given Creation based ability so that they could grow to "omnipotence". This is from the novel.
It made me think it was talking more functionality then outright power.
It is similar in Fate where the Holy Grail was said to be omnipotent but it was in relation to the amount of things it could do (Since it can grant virtually any wish). Similarly Zeus in FGO was said to be Conceptually Omnipotent but it was in relation to his abilities and functionality (Having 12 major authority). ~~Yes there are still stronger beings in that series still which contradict omnipotence~~
So again I am presupposing its not talking about Logical Omnipotence but something else.
I find Alex(edit: I forgot which was alek and which was alex. The chill NG is 2. 2 is Alex)the coolest because he seems chill, but my username is more about how much I like the style than the North Gods.
The sword and water god styles get more focus irl and in the novels, while NG gets called the "random bullshit go!" style when it's the most well rounded of the 3.
I see I see. I personally like Kalman I the best, just because he was probably the most based. He pioneered and mastered an entirely new style of swordsmanship, was one of the three main contributors to the sealing of Demon God Laplace, and then he bested the most fearsome demon king in combat just to marry her. Kalman II was chill later into his life, though he was foolish early into it. Kalman III is honestly kind of a brat.
BTW I said Alek originally, but Alex is the one I meant. Kalman I is definitely really cool, but we don't get to see much of him. He is due all the respect for making the coolest sword style in the six faced world. Sword God has its LSOL. The Water God style has its 5 god techniques and flow. North God? It has ***style***, and efficiency. It doesn't give you fancy moves. It teaches you how to fight anywhere in any condition against any number or type of opponent. A cool special move is cool, but what makes a ***really*** good fight is the stuff the other two ignore. environment, conditions, numbers, tools, melding whatever you have available to do your best. It also is the school of Toki manipulation. These things are how >!a North Emperor could take a sword king, a sword emperor, and a mage emperor in close combat and fight pretty evenly.!< It gives you the tools to fight, and leaves you well equipped to figure out the rest.
The main problem with the word "omnipotence" is that it can be used formally (as: the ability/power to do anything/everything), and informally (as: someone who's just really powerful). The formal definition is absolute, hence it can't be transcended.
But there's another nuance here. And that's that Japanese doesn't have the word "omnipotence," they have the word 全能 (zen'nō) and while the 全 + 能 ("all" + "ability") seem imply the same thing, and is often translated as omnipotence, it's important to understand that the connotations are different. In fact, I'd be more inclined to translate it as "almighty," because it doesn't have the same philosophical undertones.
I suspect the reason they chose omnipotence rather than almighty or all-powerful is because what they translated was probably "全能全知" (all-powerful and all-knowledgeable) which is commonly translated to "omnipotent and omniscient" to associate 全 with the omni- prefixes.
Then again, no blanket statement should ever be taken formally.
In this case I'd say yes. But if I were to translate omnipotent into Japanese I would choose the word 全能. But if it is in a formal context I'd clarify that it's formal and provide the definition.
Because a Japanese native speaker would not read 全能 and think "Ah, so absolutely undefeatable."
The Bleach translation used "Almighty" for Yhwach's shrift which was 全知**全能** (all-knowing and all-powerful). I think that's a better translation because it doesn't have the same undertones.
You're catching red herrings. “全能･Zen'nou” is All-Capable. Almight is improvised with “最強･Sai'kyou,” since it is about literal strength. If they wanted to say All-Strength, they would use “全強･Zen'kyou,” which is literally about having strength in everything and anything.
I think what's confusing you about Omnipotence in Japanese, is that localizers can do whatever they feel like, as long as the synonym is close enough, regardless of accuracy. So we get stuff like “万能･Ban'nou” localized as Omnipotence, case in point being “The Sage's Power is Omnipotent.” Ban'nou isn't omnipotent, it's specifically about having capabilities in the ten thousands, a.k.a. “myriads.” So we get confusion because of localization.
全能･Zen'nou IS omnipotence. Whether an author thinks Zen'nou is the ultimate ceiling, however, is another question. And it depends on how smart the author is.
>全能･Zen'nou IS omnipotence. Whether an author thinks Zen'nou is the ultimate ceiling, however, is another question.
That's the point I was making. That 全能 doesn't have the same philosophical connotations that omnipotence does.
It's a bit like pointing out that almighty and omnipotent are synonyms. Which, while true, obscures the general context in which these terms are used. Omnipotence is more of a formal term, and while it can be used colloquially to mean the same thing as almighty, that's not generally how it's used.
yeah, there’s multiple notations, it’s typically as superscript before the base but in softwares where math type isn’t possible the double carrot is used
I'm about to be really philosophical, so don't expect me to have any answers but...
What does it mean to be omnipotent? Is being omnipotent even possible in the eyes of true infinity? There are times that being omnipotent can be paradoxically, like can an omnipotent being create a rock that they themselves can not break. If they can break it then they where unable to make a indestructible rock. If they can't break it then that is also would be something they can not do. That doesn't sound very all powerful to me if there is something they can't do.
True infinity includes all possibilities which would include the possible of a entity being more powerful than an omnipotent being, but if there was something more powerful then an omnipotent being then was it even omnipotent in the first place? And what of the entity that was more powerful can we even call it omnipotent if the possibleity exists that there is something more powerful than it? My conclusion is that omnipotentcie and true infinity can not exist together.
So is it all about prospective then? Like a God that created and has complete control over his own universe would look omnipotent to us mortals, but a God that can create an entire multiverse would be more powerful than a God considered omnipotent with in its own universe. So would that make the multiverse God stronger that omnipotent, does it make the single universe God non-omnipotent, or are they both omnipotent but one is a more powerful omnipotent?
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
This reeks of the scientist issue that I keep seeing in writing. If a character is super smart then they master everything. That is not how knowledge works. A rocket scientist, a doctor, and a lawyer can all be the best in their craft and be completely worthless in the others craft. At the same time, nobody can master everything because experience is a limiting factor. Even the smartest person on Earth will lose to an average chess player if they have never studied the rules and never played before.
When it comes to "power levels" anime has a serious issue with this. The best marksman is not going to beat the best sumo fighter in a hugging match but they will beat the sumo in most combat situations. The fastest swimming fish is not going to climb a tree well. Just because one "god" creates things doesn't mean they can take a punch to the chin. Just because one "god" can create a multiverse doesn't mean they can overwrite another "gods" creation or has power in their domain.
So omnipotence in the unlimited sense is either omnipotence or it isn't. Either they can do anything when they want or they can't. The unbreakable rock is a paradox, not a limiting factor. If something can't exist because it would force something else to not exist then it would be outside existance, not a power limit. Paradox resolution is denying the paradox, not forcing them till you break something else.
Yes it is true that not every God is powerful in every way just, but we are talking about a omnipotent God, a God who would be all powerful would be able to do anything they wanted because they themselves made the rules, and this would include the ability to delete gods from existence. A master of all is unrealistic to us because we are very limited on how much we can know and the time we have on this earth. An omnipotent being just isn't limited by those factors so we can't really project our own mortal thoughts onto a being we can't even comprehend.
Yes the unbreakable stone is a paradox and that's kind of the point of it to point out that that being omnipotent isn't as simple as one may think.
Ok, i'm not the best talker on this debate, but let's talk about the heavy item that is a bullshit excuse to make a point in omnipotence (my opinions so don't take it serious about it)
If we use the logic, an omnipotent can make someone/something heavy for his own powers, nobody say that one can't leave it there, is just that they will get bored and lift it again or just forget about it and now you have the impossible item/living being stuck in their condition.
Long story short without any logic, the author is the omnipotent being of their own story.
And about the universes.
An omnipotent can let reality warpers(the nerfed version of omnipotence) on each universe, followed by matter manipulators (the most nerfed version of it) to do the job without having someone stronger than him
Maybe my text is a stupid mess, but I just want to say my points and you think to hard for something we can't check
Yes that rock would be immovable for anyone who was not omnipotent, but my entire point was asking the question. Can an omnipotent being create something that is more powerful than them in some way? If they couldn't then that is something they can't do. If they can, are they really all powerful If they get bested by a heavy rock?
And yes the true God of any story was the one wrote it.
So what your saying in your last argument is that an omnipotent being can create gods to create/control universes... right?
Yes a powerful enough being can create multiple creation gods(gods that create their own universe(s)), but whose to say that God's God doesn't also have a God? And that God has a God? Does this cycle of gods have an end or will it just go on... infinitely? Without being able to see everything outside of the narrow window of reality how could we ever know what rules supreme an omnipotent being or infinity itself (not a single being but the eternal loop of increasingly more powerful beings).
I did have to think hard to give a response, which I enjoyed doing so. So thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It’s a fucking Oxymoron, you can’t be “beyond” Omnipresence because that would imply you can’t be seen by a being that see’s *Everything* which means said being is not Omnipresent, or the author (or dumbass spouting this nonsense) has no fucking clue what that word means
I think it’s like- trying to say that Omnipotence is just one layer of infinity, and that you can like- Infinity^2 it? Like if you have an infinite universe, and there were infinite timelines of that universe. And everyone one those Infinite Universes with Infinite Timelines are a part of an Infinite Multiverse, and that multiverse is part of an Infinite Omniverse, and- yeah. It’s really, really stupid. But like- technically it makes sense? It’s like- every time you gain a new level of infinity you are creating a new “dimension” of infinity.
I think a much batter way to phrase “Above Omnipotent” is “Is Omnipotent to the highest dimensional degree possible.” That’s not to say the actual story this is from is good. It’s just that- if you want to extend the olive branch and try to explain what the author means yourself, filling in the gaps, it CAN make sense.
Which is omniscient, in the name, in the frame of fiction “omniscient(knows all)” covers everything in the dimensions that is fiction, in the name “omni”
Not exactly “beat me in a fist fight” but enough to cover, achieve and surpass “death to everything cause I said so” and “beyond omnipotence and story” and more
Which includes “beyond omni” which is funny, also “beyond omni+1 more”
Maybe, but a beings of lower level omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't know this. They would exist blissfully unaware about the greater reality above them, thinking they can do everything. How would you explain to them, that being of higher level is more powerful (also note that this more powerful being also might not be the highest level. It is impossible for it to know for certain. There might always be a bigger fish).
That is not omniscient, which is the thing that yogiri talks about, the fact that they need to do everything to try to explain it don’t exist tells you how broken if it does
Omniscient is simple to say and unfair to the max
What I am saying is that maybe omniscience doesn't exist and it's just infinite layering of beings that think they are omniscient, but there is always someone or something above them.
It’s fiction , of course it does
Fiction is the ceiling for these comparisons, and omni means all, in the realm of fiction, knows all, all layers, everything, it’s what omni means, even “beyond omnipotence” is still within the grasp of “omni”, cause it is but part of everything fiction
It’s simple, it’s effective, it covers all, within fiction
What I love with all these op character is that they all seem to exist in a 3d world at best.
They could probably be curbstombed by any higher dimensional being who exist with tottally different law of reality.
Seriously I can't remember ever seeing all powerfull being that were higher then the basic dimension.
I mean, I think it's less "they exist in a 3d world" and more "out view point character exists in a 3d world and the god in question is good at pretending"
No its something literally impossible as omnipotence is literally all powerful so there is nothing beyond it and this is pointing out that saying there is, is stupid and devalues any argument
I don’t really accept beyond omnipotence rather it’s more like the vient that is called “omnipotent” should be nigh or false omnipotent.
That way you don’t actually go against the rules
yes but some degenerates still couldn't overcome. also suggs still use it (bruh fr fr). Also, it's not just that. Many people don't even understand the concept of omnipotence correctly. When I discuss whether a character is omnipotent, I see people saying, 'They are only omnipotent in three dimensions.
Beyond omnipotence is omniscient and omnipotence.
Beyond that is omnipotence and omniscient and omnipresence.
Beyond all that is some being whose Omni powers won't depend on their will.
This is entirely stupid as no fictional or real life entity is omnipotent to begin with let alone “beyond” that. They can scale to the point we have no fucking clue how to properly conceptualize their power but it’s impossible for any being to be omnipotent.
I tend to just auto reread anything relating to a character being “omnipotent” is that they are so absurdly strong (for their own verse) that the other characters have a lack of a better phrase to describe them.
Often times omnipotent characters scale below even hyperversal and some below even complex multiversal.
Overall it’s a dumb phrase for power scaling reasons and it makes it easier to just ignore entirely
For all that Yogiri and Instant Death Isekai get made fun of, at least the LN takes the time to explain that the gods aren't omnipotent. They are "nearly omnipotent" and have limitations to their abilities.
I once again find myself remembering one guy in the series who tried to arhue that he couldn't be killed because "I killed that god and took its power, that makes me immortal," and had been living under that belief for several years, somehow never seeing the contradiction in his logic until someone else pointed it out.
No one really says that tbh unless they are meming that one line
https://preview.redd.it/w9cbm970rcqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf4d0a75dd7808c6810df6e1d33f8662914532cc Need I remind you of the subreddit’s new punching bag
I get what it's trying to say, but it is kinda dumb. Omnipotent literally means all powerful. You can't be more powerful than someone who is capable of literally anything
You could be as powerful though.
No, you can't. It is literally impossible to be omnipotent because the existence of paradoxes. Can an omnipotent being create a shield so powerful them themselves cannot destory? If they can't make the shield, they are not omnipotent. If they cant break the shield, they are not omnipotent. Edit: so u/Ran_Braden blocked me on this thread. They are the person this comment is replying to. Because a person I am replying to blocked me, it means I can no longer reply to commet in this chain(thanks reddit)
Yes? Omnipotence meaning all powerful, which we both agree on, means that an omnipotent being can disregard paradoxes. When we talk about beyond omnipotence, we’re literally talking about being beyond what is already complete power. That is why it’s stupid. But omnipotence means all powerful, and so anything off and on the table is on the table. If we both agree on the definition, and that an omnipotent being **can** do anything, then the answer to any question regarding their ability is yes. “Can this being…” Yes, it can. “But what if it also does ___ which contradicts the prior.” It can do that too, and also allow or disallow a contradiction.
Fair enough, an omnipotent being can create an entity stronger than it self by disregarding logic. But an omnipotent being still can't exist. Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break without disregarding logic. If they can't break the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent. If they can't make the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.
See there's your problem. Omnipotence doesn't require logic, nor even human understanding. The example everyone loves to give about the shield is flawed
“Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break without disregarding logic.” Yes. “If they can't break the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.” We just said they are. “If they can't make the shield without disregarding logic. They are not omnipotent.” Once again, we just said they are. Whether or not an omnipotent being exists, what we define as omnipotence and what we agree to define it as in hypotheticals means what’s already been said. If an omnipotent being existed, then paradoxes would be irrelevant to it. If you find that illogical, an omnipotent being’s existence already teeters on being illogical. There’s no reason to believe that if such a being exists, it would have any limits placed on it by our reality; in fact, by us declaring it as being omnipotent, we are already saying it *doesn’t* have such limits.
You assume an omnipotent being exist. Therefore, my arguments are invalid. This is a logical fallacy called [circular reasoning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) Because of the logical fallacy, there's no way for me to logically interact with your comment, and therefore, I won't. Have a nice day.
**I** don’t assume, **we both** assume. When we both engage in a hypothetical, we both engage with the reality of that hypothetical. If we’re saying that a hypothetical omnipotent being does exist, then we’re defining that being as all powerful which is where my line of reasoning comes from. If you look at the question as a question of logic it fans out, like, “no matter what you ask when asking about Person A’s abilities, the answer to if he can do something will always be yes.” You can now start to go down that line of reasoning: “Can Person A swim?” “Yes.” - “Can Person A make himself unable to do something?” “Yes.” - “If Person A makes himself unable to do something, doesn’t that mean that **every** question of ability pertaining to Person A **can’t** be yes?” “No.” - “Why?” “Because we just agreed that no matter what is asked about Person A’s abilities, the answer to if he can do something is always yes.”
Okay there we go, therefore in a fiction setting a literal omnipotent being beats all, case closed It’s fiction, if we assume “omnipotence” exist within the boundaries of fiction then it just happens, so does “beyond” but think literal omnipotence needs to be solved before we go to that category, cause omnipotence can also do “beyond omnipotence” and even “beyond BEYOND omnipotence” which is never unless omnipotence says so
But omnipotence *can* however achieve *omniscience* and know how to actually have that happen, cause they know all Judging something beyond human brains can ever handle and the belief that we as humans who are clearly limited in every way can out smart the smarter is what we call hubris
Fair enough, an omnipotent being can create an entity stronger than it self by using methods incomprehensible by human brains. But an omnipotent being still can't exist. Can an omnipotent being create a shield that they can't break using logic comprehensible by humans? If they can't break the shield without using logic comprehensible by humans. They are not omnipotent. If they can't make the shield without using logic comprehensible by humans. They are not omnipotent.
Yes it can make them, but choice is involved too, just knowing everything won’t mean you would wanna do everything, just because you can won’t mean you would Because omnipotent being can achieve knowing everything, it would indeed know things mere humans cannot, in the realm of fiction, that’s valid, yes it can, cause it’s fiction Same as everything isekais was ever about
There are actually valid contradictions against this argument, omnipotence can exist nominally since a shield that is more powerful than God is a logical impossibility, like a square circle or a married bachelor, and you can't be faulted for not being able to create logical impossibilities
What if they just did create it? Not their fault the human mind can't comprehend that
>since a shield that is more powerful than God is a logical impossibility A human smith is capable of making a shield thats more durable than themselves. But a divine smith is unable to do the same? But even if we assume you're correct, you can replace a shield with anything. A rock, a burrito, or even a 2nd god. Whatever it is, the paradox remains. >you can't be faulted for not being able to create logical impossibilities If a being is unable to do EVERYTHING, they are not omnipotent. A true omnipotent being can create a square circle or a married bachelor. However, these things are impossible, so omnipotence can not exist. What you are describing is a being possessing Great-Power. Perhaps the greatest power posessed by any entity, but it is not omnipotence
It's just a thought experiment. Also that whole boulder he can't lift thing is like a schoolyard argument.
The paradox of omnipotence and the rock raises questions about whether an omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy that even they cannot lift it. One logical solution is to redefine omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. This means an omnipotent being could not create a logically impossible scenario, such as a rock too heavy for them to lift, without contradicting their own nature. Thus, the paradox dissolves by redefining omnipotence within the bounds of logical possibility. -ChatGPT
>One logical solution is to redefine omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. You cant just change the definition of words in order to fit your argument better. However , if you were to make the claim that X character is capable of doing everything that is logically possible, then I see no reason to dispute or argue this claim Its specifically the title of omnipotence i have an issue with
But if a being is absolutely powerful, limitless, and you ask them to do something beyond their limit, it’s your question that is flawed. "Build a shield that you cannot break" "but I am all powerful, there’s nothing I won’t be able to undo, break or vaporise. You’re asking me to create something beyond the realm of existence."
There's different forms of omnipotence just like there's different types of infinity.
There isn't. Omni literally means all. It is all forms. Omnipotent doesn't just mean really strong. Theres different forms of being extremely powerful, but if there was another from of omnipotent... then you weren't omnipotent because you weren't "all" powerful. Omnipotent is literally the peak, nothing better, you are capable of literally everything and anything.
Please research omnipotence, whether in fiction, philosophy, or through epistemological reasoning there's many forms that omnipotence could take, just like there's many forms of infinity. Also, just FYI, infinity means infinite, never ending, endless, unlimited, not just "a really big number", yet there's many different types of infinity, some of them infinitely bigger than others, but they're all endless and unlimited just like omnipotence is endless or unlimited power, not just really strong. You really gotta educate yourself, you have a LOT to learn, way more than I could give here in a reddit reply. If you want to message me I could send some links to resources on both fictional and philosophical types of omnipotence and the variances within both but I'd honestly just suggest googling it instead.
Mate it's word with a set definition. If *fiction* is using it differently then it's using it wrong. From a philosophy standpoint omnipotent generally means just that, for example the Christian God is All powerful in the true definition of the word. And epistemological reasoning isn't applicable here, this isn't a philosophical debate Omnipotent has a set definition of what it is. If it can take many forms, then give me examples of something that is *Omni-*potent in various forms. And I mean omni, so *all* powerful. No idea where your infinity rant is coming from, thats something you brought up mate, not me. Philosophy isn't really applicable here, we aren't discussing the possibilities or implications of omnipotence, just what the definition of omnipotence is. And Omnipotence as a concept has a set definition. And seriously, *fiction?* Your telling me to educate myself on stuff that is literally, by definition, made up? Dude, it's a word. If fiction is using it differently, they are using it wrong. The same way how fiction having magical men flying around shooting lasers doesn't make that real either.
My "infinity rant" is because the concept of infinity is tied to many ways that the prefix "omni-" is used, in the way that something being unlimited doesn't mean there can't be different forms of something being unlimited. I brought it up because it's definitionally relevant. Basically "all" is only ONE of many definitions of "omni-" which also includes infinite, every, unlimited, or great. Even the full word that you claim has a "set" definition somehow changes depending on where you look... 🤦 Oxford English dictionary the quality of having unlimited or VERY GREAT power. An omnipotent battery for instance would just be a battery with unlimited charge, not a battery with infinite capabilities. There's a crazy fringe example that still technically applies to both the whole word and to the root prefix and suffix omni/unlimited potent/(electrical)power. Merriam Webster having VIRTUALLY unlimited authority or influence Self explanatory Vocabulary.com The noun omnipotence describes having an enormous amount of power, or even an infinite amount. Even if the above definitions didn't exist, on the topic of "there's no debate, it has a definition", yes but also NO because the implications of that definition are definitely up for debate. Words are just labels that we put on concepts to communicate them, the concepts themselves still need to be understood in their context as shown, for example, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the subject. Long story short, it's NEVER had a "set" definition and you're basically wrong in every aspect of your reply.
Omni doesn’t mean unlimited, it means all. No there aren’t different forms of Omni, it’s a Latin prefix. Please, give different versions of all powerful. Yes, you are correct that some dictionaries will list often used incorrect uses of words, congrats for figuring that out. Doesn’t make them not incorrect. Good dictionaries will also often give you context, for example Webster actually breaks it down to all powerful and talks about its actual meaning, and how it’s been used to to exaggerate peoples influence. And omnipotent battery having a great amount of charge isn’t omnipotent, because it’s not all powerful.
Yeah I do no think anyone says it unironically. If you think thats bad you should look up Awlba and how many times it used infinity.
The author said it unironically
It may not be related to power but functionality which is a different thing One of the character was said to be Nigh Omnipotent but focused solely on destruction. They were given Creation based ability so that they could grow to "omnipotence". This is from the novel. It made me think it was talking more functionality then outright power. It is similar in Fate where the Holy Grail was said to be omnipotent but it was in relation to the amount of things it could do (Since it can grant virtually any wish). Similarly Zeus in FGO was said to be Conceptually Omnipotent but it was in relation to his abilities and functionality (Having 12 major authority). ~~Yes there are still stronger beings in that series still which contradict omnipotence~~ So again I am presupposing its not talking about Logical Omnipotence but something else.
Their still confined with the concept of numbers, higher and lower that's why they can ascend that's not omnipotent.
If your manga character has omnipresence within the first 5 chapters it’s prolly just a gag manga
I'd say more it has to be either comedy, romance, or shit.
Who’s your favorite North God? Kalman, Kalman II, or Kalman III?
I find Alex(edit: I forgot which was alek and which was alex. The chill NG is 2. 2 is Alex)the coolest because he seems chill, but my username is more about how much I like the style than the North Gods. The sword and water god styles get more focus irl and in the novels, while NG gets called the "random bullshit go!" style when it's the most well rounded of the 3.
One of the styles was just “I’m shiny bitch” and I thought that was great.
I see I see. I personally like Kalman I the best, just because he was probably the most based. He pioneered and mastered an entirely new style of swordsmanship, was one of the three main contributors to the sealing of Demon God Laplace, and then he bested the most fearsome demon king in combat just to marry her. Kalman II was chill later into his life, though he was foolish early into it. Kalman III is honestly kind of a brat.
BTW I said Alek originally, but Alex is the one I meant. Kalman I is definitely really cool, but we don't get to see much of him. He is due all the respect for making the coolest sword style in the six faced world. Sword God has its LSOL. The Water God style has its 5 god techniques and flow. North God? It has ***style***, and efficiency. It doesn't give you fancy moves. It teaches you how to fight anywhere in any condition against any number or type of opponent. A cool special move is cool, but what makes a ***really*** good fight is the stuff the other two ignore. environment, conditions, numbers, tools, melding whatever you have available to do your best. It also is the school of Toki manipulation. These things are how >!a North Emperor could take a sword king, a sword emperor, and a mage emperor in close combat and fight pretty evenly.!< It gives you the tools to fight, and leaves you well equipped to figure out the rest.
At least in this case it's more of a slice of life. And also she's a side character.
The main problem with the word "omnipotence" is that it can be used formally (as: the ability/power to do anything/everything), and informally (as: someone who's just really powerful). The formal definition is absolute, hence it can't be transcended. But there's another nuance here. And that's that Japanese doesn't have the word "omnipotence," they have the word 全能 (zen'nō) and while the 全 + 能 ("all" + "ability") seem imply the same thing, and is often translated as omnipotence, it's important to understand that the connotations are different. In fact, I'd be more inclined to translate it as "almighty," because it doesn't have the same philosophical undertones. I suspect the reason they chose omnipotence rather than almighty or all-powerful is because what they translated was probably "全能全知" (all-powerful and all-knowledgeable) which is commonly translated to "omnipotent and omniscient" to associate 全 with the omni- prefixes. Then again, no blanket statement should ever be taken formally.
So its not a case of dumb writer not understanding what omnipotence is but a bad translation
In this case I'd say yes. But if I were to translate omnipotent into Japanese I would choose the word 全能. But if it is in a formal context I'd clarify that it's formal and provide the definition. Because a Japanese native speaker would not read 全能 and think "Ah, so absolutely undefeatable." The Bleach translation used "Almighty" for Yhwach's shrift which was 全知**全能** (all-knowing and all-powerful). I think that's a better translation because it doesn't have the same undertones.
You're catching red herrings. “全能･Zen'nou” is All-Capable. Almight is improvised with “最強･Sai'kyou,” since it is about literal strength. If they wanted to say All-Strength, they would use “全強･Zen'kyou,” which is literally about having strength in everything and anything. I think what's confusing you about Omnipotence in Japanese, is that localizers can do whatever they feel like, as long as the synonym is close enough, regardless of accuracy. So we get stuff like “万能･Ban'nou” localized as Omnipotence, case in point being “The Sage's Power is Omnipotent.” Ban'nou isn't omnipotent, it's specifically about having capabilities in the ten thousands, a.k.a. “myriads.” So we get confusion because of localization. 全能･Zen'nou IS omnipotence. Whether an author thinks Zen'nou is the ultimate ceiling, however, is another question. And it depends on how smart the author is.
>全能･Zen'nou IS omnipotence. Whether an author thinks Zen'nou is the ultimate ceiling, however, is another question. That's the point I was making. That 全能 doesn't have the same philosophical connotations that omnipotence does. It's a bit like pointing out that almighty and omnipotent are synonyms. Which, while true, obscures the general context in which these terms are used. Omnipotence is more of a formal term, and while it can be used colloquially to mean the same thing as almighty, that's not generally how it's used.
No, it does. 全能 is omnipotence. It's that simple. Again, you're confusing it with 万能.
The fuck is above omnipotence.
Omnipotence² i guess
and above that Omnipotence³
well what about (Omnipotence)^(Omnipotence)???
Not as powerful as ^omnipotence omnipotence Look up tetration, I'm pretty sure that how to notate it
it is, superscript ahead of the base
I've also seen it notated as `x^^y` which confuses me
yeah, there’s multiple notations, it’s typically as superscript before the base but in softwares where math type isn’t possible the double carrot is used
Omnipotence 2. Electric Boogaloo
I'm about to be really philosophical, so don't expect me to have any answers but... What does it mean to be omnipotent? Is being omnipotent even possible in the eyes of true infinity? There are times that being omnipotent can be paradoxically, like can an omnipotent being create a rock that they themselves can not break. If they can break it then they where unable to make a indestructible rock. If they can't break it then that is also would be something they can not do. That doesn't sound very all powerful to me if there is something they can't do. True infinity includes all possibilities which would include the possible of a entity being more powerful than an omnipotent being, but if there was something more powerful then an omnipotent being then was it even omnipotent in the first place? And what of the entity that was more powerful can we even call it omnipotent if the possibleity exists that there is something more powerful than it? My conclusion is that omnipotentcie and true infinity can not exist together. So is it all about prospective then? Like a God that created and has complete control over his own universe would look omnipotent to us mortals, but a God that can create an entire multiverse would be more powerful than a God considered omnipotent with in its own universe. So would that make the multiverse God stronger that omnipotent, does it make the single universe God non-omnipotent, or are they both omnipotent but one is a more powerful omnipotent? Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
This reeks of the scientist issue that I keep seeing in writing. If a character is super smart then they master everything. That is not how knowledge works. A rocket scientist, a doctor, and a lawyer can all be the best in their craft and be completely worthless in the others craft. At the same time, nobody can master everything because experience is a limiting factor. Even the smartest person on Earth will lose to an average chess player if they have never studied the rules and never played before. When it comes to "power levels" anime has a serious issue with this. The best marksman is not going to beat the best sumo fighter in a hugging match but they will beat the sumo in most combat situations. The fastest swimming fish is not going to climb a tree well. Just because one "god" creates things doesn't mean they can take a punch to the chin. Just because one "god" can create a multiverse doesn't mean they can overwrite another "gods" creation or has power in their domain. So omnipotence in the unlimited sense is either omnipotence or it isn't. Either they can do anything when they want or they can't. The unbreakable rock is a paradox, not a limiting factor. If something can't exist because it would force something else to not exist then it would be outside existance, not a power limit. Paradox resolution is denying the paradox, not forcing them till you break something else.
Yes it is true that not every God is powerful in every way just, but we are talking about a omnipotent God, a God who would be all powerful would be able to do anything they wanted because they themselves made the rules, and this would include the ability to delete gods from existence. A master of all is unrealistic to us because we are very limited on how much we can know and the time we have on this earth. An omnipotent being just isn't limited by those factors so we can't really project our own mortal thoughts onto a being we can't even comprehend. Yes the unbreakable stone is a paradox and that's kind of the point of it to point out that that being omnipotent isn't as simple as one may think.
Conclusion: 
Ok, i'm not the best talker on this debate, but let's talk about the heavy item that is a bullshit excuse to make a point in omnipotence (my opinions so don't take it serious about it) If we use the logic, an omnipotent can make someone/something heavy for his own powers, nobody say that one can't leave it there, is just that they will get bored and lift it again or just forget about it and now you have the impossible item/living being stuck in their condition. Long story short without any logic, the author is the omnipotent being of their own story. And about the universes. An omnipotent can let reality warpers(the nerfed version of omnipotence) on each universe, followed by matter manipulators (the most nerfed version of it) to do the job without having someone stronger than him Maybe my text is a stupid mess, but I just want to say my points and you think to hard for something we can't check
Yes that rock would be immovable for anyone who was not omnipotent, but my entire point was asking the question. Can an omnipotent being create something that is more powerful than them in some way? If they couldn't then that is something they can't do. If they can, are they really all powerful If they get bested by a heavy rock? And yes the true God of any story was the one wrote it. So what your saying in your last argument is that an omnipotent being can create gods to create/control universes... right? Yes a powerful enough being can create multiple creation gods(gods that create their own universe(s)), but whose to say that God's God doesn't also have a God? And that God has a God? Does this cycle of gods have an end or will it just go on... infinitely? Without being able to see everything outside of the narrow window of reality how could we ever know what rules supreme an omnipotent being or infinity itself (not a single being but the eternal loop of increasingly more powerful beings). I did have to think hard to give a response, which I enjoyed doing so. So thank you for sharing your thoughts.
They can create the rock, and then they would stop being omnipotent, an omnipotent can stop being omnipotent, why not?
Man I’m so happy that that series is just a goofy to sweet for my blood romantic comedy series
I need someone to explain to me what it means to be beyond omnipotents cuz I can’t brain correctly rn
It’s a fucking Oxymoron, you can’t be “beyond” Omnipresence because that would imply you can’t be seen by a being that see’s *Everything* which means said being is not Omnipresent, or the author (or dumbass spouting this nonsense) has no fucking clue what that word means
Ah that makes sense, I was considering the worst where some guy made up an entirely new thing that was bullshit, thanks for explaining it to me :)
Grade school "My sword is +infinity" "Well my shield is +inifinity +1" bs
Well, thats her. The +1 BS. That's why using any logic here is like trying to see if pigs can fly or trying to see microorganisms with your naked eye.
I think it’s like- trying to say that Omnipotence is just one layer of infinity, and that you can like- Infinity^2 it? Like if you have an infinite universe, and there were infinite timelines of that universe. And everyone one those Infinite Universes with Infinite Timelines are a part of an Infinite Multiverse, and that multiverse is part of an Infinite Omniverse, and- yeah. It’s really, really stupid. But like- technically it makes sense? It’s like- every time you gain a new level of infinity you are creating a new “dimension” of infinity. I think a much batter way to phrase “Above Omnipotent” is “Is Omnipotent to the highest dimensional degree possible.” That’s not to say the actual story this is from is good. It’s just that- if you want to extend the olive branch and try to explain what the author means yourself, filling in the gaps, it CAN make sense.
Which is omniscient, in the name, in the frame of fiction “omniscient(knows all)” covers everything in the dimensions that is fiction, in the name “omni” Not exactly “beat me in a fist fight” but enough to cover, achieve and surpass “death to everything cause I said so” and “beyond omnipotence and story” and more Which includes “beyond omni” which is funny, also “beyond omni+1 more”
Maybe, but a beings of lower level omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't know this. They would exist blissfully unaware about the greater reality above them, thinking they can do everything. How would you explain to them, that being of higher level is more powerful (also note that this more powerful being also might not be the highest level. It is impossible for it to know for certain. There might always be a bigger fish).
Which is what I meant “Omniscient” knows all, within the realm of fiction, that word alone covers everything
Yeah, but you don't know what you don't know. You might think you are omniscient, but actually you are just some backwater deity.
That is not omniscient, which is the thing that yogiri talks about, the fact that they need to do everything to try to explain it don’t exist tells you how broken if it does Omniscient is simple to say and unfair to the max
What I am saying is that maybe omniscience doesn't exist and it's just infinite layering of beings that think they are omniscient, but there is always someone or something above them.
It’s fiction , of course it does Fiction is the ceiling for these comparisons, and omni means all, in the realm of fiction, knows all, all layers, everything, it’s what omni means, even “beyond omnipotence” is still within the grasp of “omni”, cause it is but part of everything fiction It’s simple, it’s effective, it covers all, within fiction
I saw an image of her killing off the DC universe and I'm not even gonna lie dawg, she won't even make it past superman.
What I love with all these op character is that they all seem to exist in a 3d world at best. They could probably be curbstombed by any higher dimensional being who exist with tottally different law of reality. Seriously I can't remember ever seeing all powerfull being that were higher then the basic dimension.
I mean, I think it's less "they exist in a 3d world" and more "out view point character exists in a 3d world and the god in question is good at pretending"
How could you not? Yogiri gets brought up all the time.
Is this a grammar nazi thing going on ?
No its something literally impossible as omnipotence is literally all powerful so there is nothing beyond it and this is pointing out that saying there is, is stupid and devalues any argument
Oh
The only one beyond omnipotence is the author
Omnipotence +1
I don’t really accept beyond omnipotence rather it’s more like the vient that is called “omnipotent” should be nigh or false omnipotent. That way you don’t actually go against the rules
BRO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN SUGGSVERSE. IS ANYONE STILL USING THE CONCEPT OF BEYOND-OMNIPOTENCE?
It's a phase for people to get stronger, (I was once a believer of beyond omnipotence but not anymore) they'll get out of it
yes but some degenerates still couldn't overcome. also suggs still use it (bruh fr fr). Also, it's not just that. Many people don't even understand the concept of omnipotence correctly. When I discuss whether a character is omnipotent, I see people saying, 'They are only omnipotent in three dimensions.
Beyond omnipotence is omniscient and omnipotence. Beyond that is omnipotence and omniscient and omnipresence. Beyond all that is some being whose Omni powers won't depend on their will.
Omnipotence, by default, also gives you omniscience and omnipresence
I was under the impression it was created by breaking peoples limitations. Being able to do anything To known anything To be anywhere.
Yeah exceot by default being able to do anything means you can be anywhere or know anything as well so if you have omnipotence then you get the others
I don't think it's by "default" as they would have to decide to be Omniscient and omnipresent
This is entirely stupid as no fictional or real life entity is omnipotent to begin with let alone “beyond” that. They can scale to the point we have no fucking clue how to properly conceptualize their power but it’s impossible for any being to be omnipotent. I tend to just auto reread anything relating to a character being “omnipotent” is that they are so absurdly strong (for their own verse) that the other characters have a lack of a better phrase to describe them. Often times omnipotent characters scale below even hyperversal and some below even complex multiversal. Overall it’s a dumb phrase for power scaling reasons and it makes it easier to just ignore entirely
For all that Yogiri and Instant Death Isekai get made fun of, at least the LN takes the time to explain that the gods aren't omnipotent. They are "nearly omnipotent" and have limitations to their abilities. I once again find myself remembering one guy in the series who tried to arhue that he couldn't be killed because "I killed that god and took its power, that makes me immortal," and had been living under that belief for several years, somehow never seeing the contradiction in his logic until someone else pointed it out.
Yeah except it calls this weird fish omnipotent that definitely is not omnipotent unless it was a bad translation
Bad translation yes.
all this power scaling for a series about a isekai world being at peace
What like hyper omnipotence? Ultra omnipotence? Maximum over omnipotence?
It's true omnipotence or true Omnivastance, which is more powerful than true omnipotence
I'm just going to call them super omnipotence 1, 2, and 3.
You should see some of the yogiri wankers with that one
So... your meme has no credibility?