Levels of Omnipotence

Originally posted by Endless Mike
You're not paying attention.

Omnipotence has more than one definition.

It's actually quite ridiculous to debate this, as everyone knows that per real world definitions, nothing is beyond omnipotent, period. 🙂

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah if you wanted to be dense and ignore what's been established by the company. But fortunately enough most people see the sense in just going along with what the companies established.

Galan is hardly a fan of the concept concerning the "levels of omnipotence" but he still acknowledges that system to be in effect and debates within that framework.

Great post. Says it all.

Originally posted by darthgoober
And we work around those inconsistencies as best we can, but that doesn't mean that we ignore the basic character make up that's been established. Saying that Spiderman beating Firelord is BS because he doesn't normally demonstrate that level of power is far different than saying that Marvel doesn't have the right to create a being more powerful than Firelord in the first place, which is what you're doing when you say that one omnipotent being can't be greater than another.

And someone lifting a building doesn't really make sense either because the building should collapse in upon itself, but that doesn't mean that we disregard the feat. In both instances, you're putting one of the laws of reality on the back burner in favor of what's been established on panel, it's just a matter of which law of the universe you're choosing to ignore.

Another burner ... 👆

Originally posted by Galan007
The part of that online definition you keep referring to, speaks of "unlimited" power... In the SAME phrase you boldened. 😕

It's actually quite ridiculous to debate this, as everyone knows that per real world definitions, nothing is beyond omnipotent, period. 🙂

The point is that there is more than one definition.

One is unlimited, all - powerful, the other is merely great power.

Let me use an analogy:

Take the word "staple".

It has more than one definition.

One is "a short piece of wire bent so as to bind together papers, sections of a book, or the like, by driving the ends through the sheets and clinching them on the other side"

Another is "a principal raw material or commodity grown or manufactured in a locality."

So if I say that "Corn is a staple of the American midwest" does that mean that corn is a short piece of wire bent so as to bind together papers, sections of a book, or the like, by driving the ends through the sheets and clinching them on the other side?

No, I am using the second definition of staple.

Just the same, if I say that a Cosmic Cube is omnipotent, I don't mean that it is all - powerful, I mean that it is extremely powerful, because the word "omnipotent", like the word "staple", has more than one definition.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
The point is that there is more than one definition.

One is unlimited, all - powerful, the other is merely great power.

Let me use an analogy:

Take the word "staple".

It has more than one definition.

One is "a short piece of wire bent so as to bind together papers, sections of a book, or the like, by driving the ends through the sheets and clinching them on the other side"

Another is "a principal raw material or commodity grown or manufactured in a locality."

So if I say that "Corn is a staple of the American midwest" does that mean that corn is a short piece of wire bent so as to bind together papers, sections of a book, or the like, by driving the ends through the sheets and clinching them on the other side?

No, I am using the second definition of staple.

Just the same, if I say that a Cosmic Cube is omnipotent, I don't mean that it is all - powerful, I mean that it is extremely powerful, because the word "omnipotent", like the word "staple", has more than one definition.

But per real world meanings, omnipotent is the top of the food chain.... Per real world meanings, nothing is greater.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Great post. Says it all.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Another burner ... 👆

Originally posted by Galan007
In comics that line of thinking works fine, [that's pretty much what Marvel has established anyway].

But per real world meanings, omnipotent is the top of the food chain.... Per real world meanings, nothing is greater.

In the real world, omnipotence has two meanings.

Only one of which means nothing is greater.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
In the real world, omnipotence has two meanings.

Only one of which means nothing is greater.

Why debate with someone who doesn't think omnipotence is as high as you can get?

YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Omnipotence has two meanings.

One is "as high as you can get". The other is not. From context you have to figure out which one is meant.

There are two types of things that are impossible.
Those that are factually impossible (like humans with wings) and things that are logically impossible (like drawing a figure that's both a square and a circle).

Nothing logically impossible can happen for it would be a contradiction.

So since omni means 'all' or 'there is absolutely nothing excluded from' then by logic, there can be no greater power than one who is omnipotent. For the omnipotent one can do all.

My theory is that the narrator in comics knowledge is only limited to what is known in the comic reality at the time. Meaning, that even the narrator isn't even omniscient. For all was thought to exist was a universe, until a multiverse was discovered outside. Then only a multiverse until a megaverse was found,etc. That is why many beings were being said of having omnipotence, until a higer more powerful being was discovered.

But guess what, a better term has been found. Actually, it has been used for quite some time now. The term is "relative omnipotence".

Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
It comes down to how the word all (or omni) is used, really.

"All" powerful as in you can do anything/cause anything? Sure, all of those characters can.

"All" powerful as in you have power over anyone? Not necessarily. Not if other people are omnipotent as well.

Originally posted by SnazzySmurph

Let omnipotent A be greater than omnipotent B (meaning A can beat B) and let omnipotent B be greater than omnipotent C. So in 'omnipotent' if one can do anything because one is 'all powerful' then why doesn't C have the power to beat B like A does?

Originally posted by h1a8
Let omnipotent A be greater than omnipotent B (meaning A can beat B) and let omnipotent B be greater than omnipotent C. So in 'omnipotent' if one can do anything because one is '[B]all powerful' then why doesn't C have the power to beat B like A does? [/B]

People can argue til they go blue about how it doesn't make literal sense, but it's not exactly illogical, when analyzed, and it's not important, because the comics aren't going to change.

Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
Because, in a universe where multiple omnipotent creatures exist, it just doesn't work out. Thus, whereas they can all shape the world to their whim, they can't shape each other, unless they're higher on the food chain.

People can argue til they go blue about how it doesn't make literal sense, but it's not exactly illogical, when analyzed, and it's not important, because the comics aren't going to change.

its absolutely illogical for it creates a contradiction.

Originally posted by h1a8
its absolutely illogical for it creates a contradiction.

Nobody ever intended to set HoM Wanda up against Roma.

So, it really doesn't matter whether one is not quite Omnipotent, just because there's someone with a bit of a bigger bite than her.

Slight contradiction, perhaps, but not a practical one.

Originally posted by SnazzySmurph
These characters, upon creation, were supposed to be, for all intents and purposes, Omnipotent.

Nobody ever intended to set HoM Wanda up against Roma.

So, it really doesn't matter whether one is not quite Omnipotent, just because there's someone with a bit of a bigger bite than her.

Slight contradiction, perhaps, but not a practical one.

Have you ever thought about the fact that it was believed that one was omnipotent until another greater was discovered and thus erasing the former's omnipotent status or at least changing it to 'relative omnipotence'?

Logically speaking , a being that is declared omnipotent can't be inferior to somebody because this definition mostly applies to somebody who has unlimited ability to do anything .

Marvel uses the word omnipotence illogical and too many times to make certain characters look powerfull and to hype the story , which is one of the things that bothers me because it's pretty stupid . Not really saying that DC hasn't used it irrationally on a few ocasions but Marvel seems to use it with every strong character that shows up : Oh .. here comes the Beyonder .. let's make him Omnipotent . Thanos with infinity gauntlet ? Omnipotent . Thanos with the heart ? Omnipotent . Living Tribunal ? Omnipotent . Cosmic Cubes ? Omnipotent etc ..

It's irrational because by this logic all these characters should be supreme and nobody could be stronger than the other which also implies that all of them are equal to the One Above All .

In DC this sentence pretty much sums it up :

And this is the way it should be in both Marvel and DC . Nobody should really be called Omnipotent except the supreme characters .

Agreed, although some beings like Thanos or Adam may spout out "i am supreme" we all know they aren't just by reading the story. The fact that LT took no action to stop Thanos from getting the HOTI proves it. Marvel does seem to overdo it.

Originally posted by Galan007

It's actually quite ridiculous to debate this, as everyone knows that per real world definitions, nothing is beyond omnipotent, period. 🙂

Originally posted by Endless Mike
YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Omnipotence has two meanings.

One is "as high as you can get". The other is not. From context you have to figure out which one is meant.

The word you are looking for is "supreme".