Originally posted by Air Legend
I should have stopped reading when you said Thanos failed to fix the universe. If you bothered to comprehend the story, he did fix the Marvel Universe- by recreating it.
then he didn't really 'fix' the BROKEN universe, did he. he was forced to in essence rebuild it WITHOUT the flaw. he failed to fix it so had to start it again -- anew without the flaw. the egg was cracked, he couldn't repair it, so he threw it out and got a new egg same in every way but WITHOUT the crack. he didn't FIX the flawed universe, recreated it. huge difference. 😉
Anyways, I deleted your comments on the rock thing since you ignored the other examples and also due to the fact that it wasn't critical to the point I was trying to convey. Your argument that an omnipotent being can't fail at anything is illogical and maybe when you come to your senses you'll realize the truth in this.
😂
you were using a linguistic paradox to try and prove my comment illogical. that's ironic. however, several posts ago, before you ever dropped into the thread, i said an omnipotent being can acheive anything he wants without limit EXCEPT for silly little things that are illogical LIKE the rock example you brought up. i'd thought if i headed off that type of silliness it would prevent them being brought up. my bad . . . 😬
as for an omnipotent being being unable to fail -- it's axiomatic i'm afraid. omnipotence=ability to achieve any desired goal that is not outside the being's nature -- ie -- that is not illogical. an omnipotent being possesses INFINITE power and with said power can do ANYTHING within logical boundaries. they can NOT fail. if you claim an omnipotent being CANNOT achieve omniscience with his power, you are limiting his power and therefore you are decreeing him NOT omnipotent. i really don't see how you don't get this point.
Omnipotence doesn't imply omniscience. Where the hell did you get that from?
explain how with limitless power one cannot decree himself omniscient.
And that definitely doesn't apply to comics. Example: Titans usurping God's power and becoming omnipotent, but lacking omniscience and omnipresence, as Lucifer notes, one of the most difficult things to learn.
SWEET! you've proven my point for me. i said earlier that if you are redefining omnipotence to suit some perceived 'comicbook' definition of the term, i have no problem with it. that's exactly what you seem to be doing here when you say it DEFINITELY doesn't apply in comics. if you want to come up with your own definition of omnipotence and force it to fit whatever you feel thanos achieved, bully for you! 😄
That eliminates your Thanos not being omniscient, therefore not omnipotent argument.
then again . . .
And if you picked up the nuances in Marvel the End, you'd realize that God acted through Thanos.
sweet! again! further support for me. thanos was INDEED a tool, being used and directed by forces OUTSIDE his presence. were he god/omnipotent/all there would be NOTHING outsde him. there could NOT be, since he is 'all'. since toaa still existed, thanos could NOT be all, nor could he be omnipotent. subject as he was to toaa's plan he was also bound by a destiny to achieve what he did. all these restrictions on an omnipotent being?? please . . .
Thanos heals all of Marvel by starting over from scratch.
yep, cuz he FAILED to fix the flawed version and was FORCED to recreate it WITHOUT the flaw.
"I was the perfect candidate to be the destroyer of the universe."God (Jim Starlin since that's how Marvel works) gave Thanos his power
to fix the Marvel universe. 🙂
and if you are using the comicbook version of omnipotence, i have absolutely no beef at all with your stance or opinions. but thanos most certainly was NOT omnipotent by the real world definition.
cripes, even TRICKSTER can see that. 😛
Originally posted by leonidas
then he didn't really 'fix' the BROKEN universe, did he. he was forced to in essence rebuild it WITHOUT the flaw. he failed to fix it so had to start it again -- anew without the flaw. the egg was cracked, he couldn't repair it, so he threw it out and got a new egg same in every way but WITHOUT the crack. he didn't FIX the flawed universe, recreated it. huge difference. 😉
In Marvel, God is the artist so of course he will always be above any comic character since he draws them. In this case, Jim Starlin made the story so that the only way to fix the flaw was by recreating the Marvel Universe.
Originally posted by leonidasyou were using a linguistic paradox to try and prove my comment illogical. that's ironic. however, several posts ago, before you ever dropped into the thread, i said an omnipotent being can acheive anything he wants without limit EXCEPT for silly little things that are illogical LIKE the rock example you brought up. i'd thought if i headed off that type of silliness it would prevent them being brought up. my bad . . . 😬[/B]
By your definition, omnipotence should be above logic.
Originally posted by leonidas
as for an omnipotent being being unable to fail -- it's axiomatic i'm afraid. omnipotence=ability to achieve any desired goal that is not outside the being's nature -- ie -- that is not illogical. an omnipotent being possesses INFINITE power and with said power can do ANYTHING within logical boundaries. [/B]
Originally posted by leonidas
they can NOT fail. if you claim an omnipotent being CANNOT achieve omniscience with his power, you are limiting his power and therefore you are decreeing him NOT omnipotent. i really don't see how you don't get this point.[/B]
Originally posted by leonidas
explain how with limitless power one cannot decree himself omniscient.[/B]
Originally posted by leonidas
SWEET! you've proven my point for me. i said earlier that if you are redefining omnipotence to suit some perceived 'comicbook' definition of the term, i have no problem with it. that's exactly what you seem to be doing here when you say it DEFINITELY doesn't apply in comics. if you want to come up with your own definition of omnipotence and force it to fit whatever you feel thanos achieved, bully for you! 😄 [/B]
Wait why are we arguing over this is in the first place? The Presence isn't even omnipotent by the real definition of omnipotence, let alone by your definition of omnipotence.
Originally posted by leonidas
sweet! again! further support for me. thanos was INDEED a tool, being used and directed by forces OUTSIDE his presence. were he god/omnipotent/all there would be NOTHING outsde him. there could NOT be, since he is 'all'. since toaa still existed, thanos could NOT be all, nor could he be omnipotent. subject as he was to toaa's plan he was also bound by a destiny to achieve what he did. all these restrictions on an omnipotent being?? please . . .[/B]
Originally posted by leonidas
yep, cuz he FAILED to fix the flawed version and was FORCED to recreate it WITHOUT the flaw.[/B]
Already covered this.
Originally posted by leonidas
and if you are using the comicbook version of omnipotence, i have absolutely no beef at all with your stance or opinions. but thanos most certainly was NOT omnipotent by the real world definition. [/B]
Not omnipotent by your definition. Omnipotence just means all powerful. That's what Thanos was. 🙂
Originally posted by leonidas
cripes, even TRICKSTER can see that. 😛 [/B]
Originally posted by leonidas
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 . . .
Being not happy doesn't necessarily mean we are unable to control our emotions or the environment around us. Assuming an omnipotent being, you can still chose to have emotions so theres no inability to control if you choose not to control. You can stop the emotions if you want but you decide not to. that doesn't limit your power.
Secondly, being unhappy doesn't mean we aren't able to control the environment around us or prevent what made us unhappy. If I chose to watch a sad movie that subsequently made me sad that doesn't mean I couldn't control the environment and was forced to watch the movie. I chose to do something that would probably make me feel the emotion of sadness.
And even if we have trouble controlling our emotions, that is not required to have emotions. An extremely skilled neurosurgeon (probably in the future. but it's physiologically possible anyway) can make a person feel almost any emotion and have that at his /her control by flipping a few switches. The person is in complete control of his/her emotions and has complete power over what he/she feels but can still feel. They chose to be effected by the environment even if they control the environment. Ultimate power doesn't mean nothing can affect you. It just means complete control of what you allow to affect you and how you are affected.
I agree that surprise implies a lack of omnipotence though (or omniscience really but like was said omnipotence can give u omniscience and to really be able to do ANYTHING you need to knowledge of everything to do it. I'll say more later) It's possible you can restrict your omniscience as an omnipotent being if you chose too but you can argue this restriction prevents you from doing things that you need the knowledge for. Allowing yourself to feel happiness and sadness causes no limitations in what you can do especially if you can shut off the sadness anytime you want.
In regards to thanos he seemed to obviously lack omniscience and so wasn't able to do a lot of things. It's possible he chose to let himself still feel etc but having uncontrollable rage or something doesn't make sense for an omnipotent being (but this could just be linguistic for effect). I don't have time now to get into an actual discussion about thano's omnipotence though. I'll input later if I have time.
Oh and omnipotent beings can't do illogical things. I didn't exactly like the explanation that was given here by leonidas I think but he is right. People act like logic is a restriction on power but it isn't. It's just the way things are. The if thursday was a fruit what fruit would it be question is a good example (or I enjoy the what does yellow smell like, what colour is bitter questions). The whole rock argument is just as nonsensical as those questions though. Just cus you don't know what colour bitter is doesnt' mean you aren't omniscient. Just because you can't make a rock so heavy you can't lift it doesn't mean you aren't omnipotent. Logic just is. at best you're making a linguistic joke by asking those questions.
Originally posted by Air Legend
🙄
Recreating is fixing the flaw.
no it's not. the egg was cracked. he couldn't fix it -- ie--failed to do so-- so he had to go to the fridge and get a new one. later he intentionally tried to destroy everything. again he failed and didn't even KNOW he failed.
2 failures=2 failures too many for a truly omnipotent being. 🙂
In Marvel, God is the artist so of course he will always be above any comic character since he draws them. In this case, Jim Starlin made the story so that the only way to fix the flaw was by recreating the Marvel Universe.
no degrees of omnipotence. you are or aren't. he was not, and citing story purposes doesn't excuse the failures.
By your definition, omnipotence should be above logic.So then an omnipotent being can't do everything, since, according to you, it is inhibited by "logical boundaries."
again, logic is a boundary because anything outside logic (paradoxes) is nonsensical and hence meaningless.
Thanos could have willed himself to be omniscient, but he didn't because Jim Starlin didn't want him too for the stories sake. An omnipotent being can choose to not be omnipotent. Classic Beyonder is an excellent example, as he turned his omniscience on and off when he wanted.
now classic b was omnipotent too?? he didn't even know our universe existed for a long time. certainly not omnipotent or omniscient.
Wait why are we arguing over this is in the first place? The Presence isn't even omnipotent by the real definition of omnipotence, let alone by your definition of omnipotence.
shrug
In Marvel, you can't truly be God unless you're the artist/writer himself, so your assessment is just inane. Thanos was God within the omniverse (comic book reality).
😂 no kidding. so when people run around saying thanos was marvel's 'god' it is absurd in the extreme. even within the MU he was not omnipotent. he was a tool, destined to do the job given him by toaa. without omniscience, he also had no way to know for CERTAIN that he was truly omnipotent. it was the saem when he had the cube or IG. if he doesn't know all, he can NOT know if he was omnipotent. so his claims, and the claims of others (also non-omnipotents) are meaningless.
Please, he's been overwanking DC characters way more often than usual as of late...to make up for nvr's perma ban of course.
😂 he has some big shoes to fill . . .