Originally posted by leonidas
so . . . he wasn't really omnipotent because the story needed him NOT to be? ❌you can cite story purposes all you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that his 'omnipotence' was repeatedly refuted by his thoughts and actions. the story is one of the worst ever written by marvel BECAUSE of the ridiculous contradictions. you say thanos was omnipotent because of his words and the words of others in the story. omnipotence by definition implies omniscience and infallibility -- he has the power to know all and see all.
he was anything BUT either of those things throughout that silly series. you can't say -- "well, he WOULD have been omnipotent if the story didn't require him to HAVE to fail." failure and omnipotence are by definition mutually exclusive. he failed, therefore he was not omnipotent. there is no gray area.
i've repeatedly said that he [b]may
have possessed unlimited power (though that is also shown to be untrue because again, he FAILED to fix the problem and was FORCED to resort to resetting things) but he was not omnipotent (ie--by definition INCAPABLE of failing at ANYTHING). he failed to control his temper. he failed to understand until later that he was being played by toaa, he failed to perceive the army gathering against him. he despaired, was surprised, etc . . . the story itself is a story of REDEMPTION. one who is truly omnipotent does not REQUIRE redemption. thanos retained his sense of mortality/humanity throughout the series. he was a mortal being wielding a lot of power. he HAD to retain his mortality for the sake of the story. no reader can sympathize with a 'truly' omnipotent being. as such, BECAUSE of his mortality, he was NOT omnipotent.as far as showing you a direct quote or line saying he was limited -- well, ironically, it says thanos was limited EXACTLY the same number of times it says he "destroyed the multiverse and omniverse". 😉 you can't look at context and extrapolate for one thing, then refuse to accept context for another. that's exactly what you are doing here.
well, from a very reliable source (at least he thinks so! 😄 )
so, even you feel (and i agree completely) it is possible that thanos allowed something to happen subconsciously -- ie -- without his actually being aware of its happening. that could obviously not happen were he omnipotent.
🤨 i trust you are kidding, but hey, as you wish. 🙂
UNCONTROLLABLE ANGER (someone omnipotent is ALWAYS in control)
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=angercq1.jpgDESTINED to annihilate
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=destinedxg4.jpgDESTINED to be my station
http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=destiny2oh0.jpgDESPERATION, DENIAL and outright FAILURE -- omnipotence does NOT fail
http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=failednx1.jpgIMPOSSIBLE for him (doesn't matter that the story 'required it'. nothing is impossible if someone is omnipotent -- that's the definition of it)
http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=impossiblepe5.jpgSURPRISE. again, implying he didn't know something
http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=surpriseww6.jpgUNAWARE. again he doesn't know something. omnipotence=knows all
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=unaware2mo5.jpgand there are other examples, but that makes my point. thanos was powerful, not omnipotent. at least not in the true sense of the word.
and a point about bobi's take on emotions and infallibility -- it's my opinion bobi that emotions DO indicate fallibility (but lack of emotions does NOT equate to the obverse, obviously). if we are happy, it implies we have experienced a time where we were NOT happy, which implies an inability to control our emotions or the environment around us or at least an inability to prevent whatever MADE us unhappy. surprise indicates lack of a priori knowledge. anger, lack of rational control. emotions are our responses to situations that are dictated TO us. we cannot control them, they simply are. an inability to control is a fault. this implies we are fallible. an omnipotent being would be OUTSIDE emotional influence because they would never NOT be in absolute control of everything. thanos could not control his emotions on a number of occasions. he LOST control of himself and his power. again, these are mutually exclusive to omnipotence. citing story purposes doesn't work unless we change the definition for omnipotence for a comicbook. and if that's what you want to do, that's fine by me. just don't claim he is omnipotent. say he's . . . comicbook omnipotent, whatever that might mean . . .
not than common sense. if marvel tells me black is white, it may well be the case WITHIN their universe. but in the real world marvel's opinion doesn't matter. for purposes of their universe, they have declared black is white. that's fine and i accept it within their universe. like they can define their own version of omnipotence if they want. and maybe they have. you said in a later post that god's a happy old man. the difference even there is simple -- god BECAME man in that book. thanos did NOT become god, he used some of his power and retained his sense of humanity. good for the story -- bad for your supposed omnipotence.
now, again, if you want to argue that by marvel standards he was omnipotent, fine. but the marvel definition then is clearly very different from our real world definition. we either redefine omnipotence to allow for this clearly NOT omnipotent 'comicbook version' of the concept, or we scrap the whole discussion because it is clear thanos was NOT omnipotent in anyway beyond his declaring himself such and having other comic characters declare him as such. he also showed he was more powerful than anyone who faced him, but . . . so what? that in itself does not mean he's omnipotent -- just more powerful than the others. and if lt really DID think thanos was omnipotent in the 'true' sense of the word, why bother raising an army to challenge him? if lt truly 'wove destiny' he would have known it was futile.
thanos was a tool. he served a function. by his OWN admission he was DESTINED to play the role he did. someone omnipotent DESIGNS destiny and function. an omnipotent being is NOT subject to its dictates.
i could find a scan where thor says odin is omnipotent. you always carry on-panel evidence too far, mm. your scan of lt says HE is omnipotent, too. clearly you cannot believe that (since you think thanos is omnipotent and above him). so your scan is invalid and really doesn't support anything. if he's not omnipotent, lt doesn't know everything, and galan's scan is as valid as your own. they both demonstrate that lt is NOT omnipotent.
if you're questioning that thanos retained his sense of himself throughout (and all the faults that come with him), then it is indeed time to split. again, it was a redemption story, we are supposed to relate to thanos so that means he NEEDED to retain his faults because he was striving to move BEYOND them. having faults of course means he was NOT omnipotent. but, whatever. i suspect you'll never change your mind. neither will i. no scan you can show can convince me he was "in the true sense of the word," omnipotent (cuz then there could not be a story) so we really don't have anything left to discuss. could he have used the power to RENDER himself omniscient, and above all the concepts that still existed within him? maybe. but failing as he did to accomplish tasks (couldn't heal the universe, couldn't control is emotions, couldn't immediately perceive he was being used and tricked) clearly says to me that he did NOT possess truly infinite power, but rather he seems to have possessed the power toaa wanted him to have, enough to serve the function he was DESTINED to perform.
speculation? of course, but makes sense to me. more sense than saying an obviously fault-laden character, who failed to not only fix the universe WITHOUT having to destroy it, but also repeatedly failed to control his own emotions, was omnipotent.
always a pleasure though, mm. 🙂 [/B]
