Astner
The Ghost Who Walks
Originally posted by Endless Mike
You're right. If some new uber being from an even higher dimension appears that's confirmed to be stronger than Tenchi, then Tenchi can't be treated as omnipotent. Of course, this applies to any supposedly "omnipotent" being in fiction.
Which is illconceived logic. By suggesting that there can't be anything above a omnipotent entity you're imposing logical boundaries. The same logical boundaries that are already there, due to the paradoxes mentioned earlier--
"Can a omnipotent being create a concept greater than omnipotence?"--is one facet of the paradox. If you insist of excising the logical boundaries you're sacrificing your right to say
"Nothing can be greater".
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Which is the entire point, and one of the reasons why the entire omnipotence debate is pointless and will never get anywhere. Once you accept that a truly omnipotent character would be able to ignore logic, it's impossible to proceed with an argument.
You missed the point. A debate with illogical variables
is always inconclusive, because then you've erased the line separating
right from wrong. The entire structure of logical reasoning relies on that all variables are logically bounded.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
He was the one who created the Chousein and the entire Tenchiverse
Which literally is equally as great a testament to his omnipotence is, as the ability to destroy planets is to Frieza's. Feats within the framework of logical coherence aren't within reach of illogicalities.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
This again? laugh: That's obviously a joke scene/casually making conversation. After all, he was pretty whimsical when we saw him. Taking something like that seriously is just inane.
Considering his brief appearance, you're excluding a lot of data overlooking that. The fact that he further operated within the structure of space-time--as time itself is a requisite to commit actions--further puts his power to question. Of course, if there there was evidence of exposition given by the writer confirming that he in fact had the ability to operate outside logic then the situation would be different. But that isn't the case.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
No, I'm saying that omnipotence debates in general are stupid, as it's impossible to really prove anything or get anywhere with them, because omnipotence as a concept is so estranged from the real world logic and experience of human beings.
What I fail to understand is why you would commit logical fallacies for the exception of omnipotence. Since the only way to prove it is by providing an elaborate explanation given by the author, which I personally haven't come across.
In the end, "omnipotence" has more than one definition and isn't sufficient as proof. Neither is the position of being supreme, nor the position of being the demiurge (the uncaused cause).