Astner
The Ghost Who Walks
Originally posted by id369
Actually I disagree entirely. If the premises of such fictional literature establishes its one true and only God. Then by laws of fictional interchangeability, its omnipotence must be acknowledged and respected. Regardless if said character takes place in a more condense title.To go beyond the fact, just diminishes to the points and views of what you regard unsurpassed/unsurpassable. This is what you want to debate isn’t it?
Established omnipotence, omnipotence by your definition that is, is what I'm looking for. Which you have and will be unable to provide.
And there are numerous interpretations of the term omnipotence, on wikipedia (omnipotence paradox) for instance it's divided into five categories.
There are various definitions in dictionaries and alike, but all pretty vague and easy to shape so it would apply to the definition you're seeking.
As for respecting the acknowledgments in the various fictions. Should we respect it in the same sense as we respect that Vegeto was unmatched in the Dragonball universe--and therefore unmatched in all other fictional universes as well? Because that is essentially what you are implying.
And as I stated above, that is a no limits fallacy.
Originally posted by id369
If so, its pointless Michael Demiurgos, Beyonder or what ever name you go by these days.
Astner is fine as you can see by my username, but I don't any relevance what so ever for it to be brought up in the argument.
Originally posted by id369
Because this subject has bin dealt with numerous times, and I don’t see if you will offer any different perspective then when you debated Comic Book Guy, Endless Mike, Anti Exsistance, Ukoku Sanzo, Ryoma Nagare…etc.. or myself.
Again, any theory, hypothesis or coherent idea even are open for questions and debate. I asked your to back up your claim and you failed to do so.
Originally posted by id369
You wish to know what my definition of Omnipotence is. The definitive All Powerful/All Knowing cosmic creator.
I see, and I'm sure it's only a few that share that definition--keep that in mind.
I am however curious of various points in your suggested idea.
You said that it has to be a creator, and in a sense that it true--it has to be the cause of everything, and creation is a part of that--however it also means that it's a destroyer, or more encompassing, the cause of all actions.
As for omniscience--for an omnipotent to have a consciousness would be to limit the omnipotent. A with all knowledge and power would be far more inefficient than the quantum principle for instance.
"The definitive all powerful" was also an interesting choose of words. We can think beyond all that is. Everything, or "All", is within the framework of logic. With imagination, and (or with-) mathematical formulas you can however extend the eleventh dimension in M-theory and go beyond the omniverse--it's not logical but it is possible. So if you limit your supposed omnipotent to "All that is", instead of "All that is and isn't" (even that wouldn't be enough) I can easily imagine something beyond that.
And by that your omnipotent would in my mind be restricted, hence surpassable.
Originally posted by id369
Anyhow until Iimage decides to create a character that surpasses MoM, no different then if Marvel decided to create a character that surpasses TOAA. Then to this date, no different to TOAA, MoM will continue to be that comic title Omnipotent entity.
I never denied that he wore the omnipotent title. Simply that he, when compared to a selected few others doesn't measure up. There are so many outrageous statements in the world of fiction, both by authors and characters--that they shouldn't be taken as seriously. And even if there weren't, the possibility of them alone should be taken under consideration. The Mother from Image comics are, as far as we know it, the creator of a type-one multiverse (basically a cluster of an infinite amount of time-lines). The Man of Miracles is the walking avatar of the Mother--just like Jesus.
And that's all that the Mother is to us debaters, an entity with power to create a type-one multiverse. Because that is what the Mother has done, in a debate I can use these pieces of evidence. And would, by that be defeated by the likes of World's funnest Mr. Mxyzptlk.
What you are trying to do is use a term which has been to illustrate the Mother, and then apply your definition to it. The error in this lies in the suggestions that it might be hyperbole, or that the authors didn't share your definition.
And again, maybe you're right. Maybe the authors shared your definition and meant exactly what you were trying to tell. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a fallacious argument, as it lacks any kind of evidence--and is therefore not a reasonable way to debate.
