Doom-Plutonian vs SBP & WWH

Originally posted by Galan007
facepalm

In essence you are asking if omnipotence is not omnipotence. You may think this is clever, but it is actually nonsensical. It violates the fundamental principle of all thought: the law of non-contradiction. A=A, case closed. Saying omnipotence=/=omnipotence makes as much sense as saying that A=/=A. Your question is the equivalent of asking "Goo Goo gobbledeeewonka snork!?" It makes no sense. How about I ask you if the chair you are sitting on is a chair? I might think I am clever, but you would see very clearly how much of a fool I am. Point: it is idiotic to try and quantify infinite power through the use of very finite analogies. We are human beings. We cannot wrap our heads around omnipotence-- if we could, it'd defeat the concept of omnipotence all together.

The dumbed down answer to your 'question' is that an omnipotent being both can, and cannot lift the boulder. Simple.

Galan, you are reading my posts out of context. I wasn't trying to disprove omnipotence. But merely showing that omnipotence can't cover the logically impossible. Read ALL of the relevant posts leading up to the one you quoted. That's why I hate when people quote me out of context. It makes me use unnecessary energy to explain something that was already explained in an earlier post.

In summary, the argument I gave (the one you quoted) is not one I support. I just used it just to show Saint that his definition of Omnipotence is flawed.
Nothing more.

The omnipotent being can't both and can and can't lift the boulder. We would get a contradiction in the definition of what 'can' and 'can't' means.

Me and Saint are debating the definition of Omnipotence.
I say it doesn't cover the logically impossible.
He say it does.
But the logical impossible is gives a self contradiction.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which goes back to the original point.

If you want to cling to definitions, black is always black, and if its grey, FU, then yeah, Doom with limitless Plutonian power wins.

If you don't want to, and say, fine, in comics, sometimes they use terminology which we can't apply real world logic to (infinite Hulk strength, limitless Plutonian strength, abstracts), then Doom with Plutonian powers wins.

Limitless power doesn't imply what speed in which the power is accessed. Limitless isn't the same as infinite. Limitless means no limit. Power growing at a non converging rate implies limitless. But infinity can never be reached this way.

Is the following correct?
"An immortal character who can access an extra 1 joule of power per second indeed has limitless power?"

Also it was stated that Sentry has the power of a million exploding suns, when in reality he never showed anything close to that. Should we accept statements over on panel proof?

Originally posted by Galan007
facepalm

In essence you are asking if omnipotence is not omnipotence. You may think this is clever, but it is actually nonsensical. It violates the fundamental principle of all thought: the law of non-contradiction. A=A, case closed. Saying omnipotence=/=omnipotence makes as much sense as saying that A=/=A. Your question is the equivalent of asking "Goo Goo gobbledeeewonka snork!?" It makes no sense. How about I ask you if the chair you are sitting on is a chair? I might think I am clever, but you would see very clearly how much of a fool I am. Point: it is idiotic to try and quantify infinite power through the use of very finite analogies. We are human beings. We cannot wrap our heads around omnipotence-- if we could, it'd defeat the concept of omnipotence all together.

The dumbed down answer to your 'question' is that an omnipotent being both can, and cannot lift the boulder. Simple.

This says it all!!

Originally posted by the Darkone
This says it all!!

It's says that Galan didn't read my previous posts and you didn't read the below:

Originally posted by h1a8
Galan, you are reading my posts out of context. I wasn't trying to disprove omnipotence. But merely showing that omnipotence can't cover the logically impossible. Read ALL of the relevant posts leading up to the one you quoted. That's why I hate when people quote me out of context. It makes me use unnecessary energy to explain something that was already explained in an earlier post.

In summary, the argument I gave (the one you quoted) is not one I support. I just used it just to show Saint that his definition of Omnipotence is flawed.
Nothing more.

The omnipotent being can't both and can and can't lift the boulder. We would get a contradiction in the definition of what 'can' and 'can't' means.

Me and Saint are debating the definition of Omnipotence.
I say it doesn't cover the logically impossible.
He say it does.
But the logical impossible is gives a self contradiction.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's says that Galan didn't read my previous posts and you didn't read the below:

I did, dont tell what I didn't read!!! Your still wrong and a troll!!!

Originally posted by h1a8
Limitless power doesn't imply what speed in which the power is accessed. Limitless isn't the same as infinite. Limitless means no limit. Power growing at a non converging rate implies limitless. But infinity can never be reached this way.

Is the following correct?
"An immortal character who can access an extra 1 joule of power per second indeed has limitless power?"

Also it was stated that Sentry has the power of a million exploding suns, when in reality he never showed anything close to that. Should we accept statements over on panel proof?

Infinite can never be reached.

Is the following correct?
"An immortal character who can access an extra 1 joule of power per second indeed has infinite power?"

You are making an arbitrary distinction where there isn't one.

I travel 100mph for a limitless distance to reach my home; I travel 1mph for an infinite distance to reach my home. In which scenario do I reach my destination first? The rate at which something grows does not determine whether it is limitless or infinite.

Originally posted by Mindset
Limitless can never be reached.

Infinite can never be reached.

Is the following correct?
"An immortal character who can access an extra 1 joule of power per second indeed has infinite power?"

You are making an arbitrary distinction where there isn't one.

I travel 100mph for a limitless distance to reach my home; I travel 1mph for an infinite distance to reach my home. In which scenario do I reach my destination first? The rate at which something grows does not determine whether it is limitless or infinite.

Damn ownage by Mindset, Professor Mindset!!

Originally posted by Mindset
Limitless can never be reached.

Infinite can never be reached.

Is the following correct?
"An immortal character who can access an extra 1 joule of power per second indeed has infinite power?"

You are making an arbitrary distinction where there isn't one.

I travel 100mph for a limitless distance to reach my home; I travel 1mph for an infinite distance to reach my home. In which scenario do I reach my destination first? The rate at which something grows does not determine whether it is limitless or infinite.

The term 'limitless' is not a quantity but a state of being. Thus there is no such notion of whether it can be reached or not.

Infinity can't be reached by steps, it must be reached all at once.

The following isn't correct since infinity can't be reach by a finite rate in time. This is the case because it will take infinite time to reach infinity power, if it is done in steps (at a rate).

The rate at which something grows indeed does not determine whether it is limitless. We need certainty that the rate will continue indefinitely.
So something is limitless IF it grows at a non converging rate AND continues to grow indefinitely. But something CAN NEVER reach infinity growing at any assignable finite rate.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Damn ownage by Mindset, Professor Mindset!!

Statements like this creates self embarrassment you when you actually find out the truth.

about those limitless statements...were the news men saying them? they didn't put them in a corner box

😕

Originally posted by h1a8
Energy is physical.
Laser light is energy, yet can be blocked by material.

Any character who at the time is indeed abstract in nature.
A physical body cannot be abstract. So if an abstract being has one then their body isn't them at all but rather a representation of them (meaning, destroying their body does absolutely nothing to them).

What makes you smarter "out there" will sometimes make you dumber "in here". 😄

You must chose your alignment.

True omnipotence is impossible.

Due to logical constraints that are impossible to rationalize as being able to work.

'Omnipotence' as a status can simply be equated to being an omniversal power that is above all others.

How will an omnipotent create a rock too heavy for him to lift and yet still be strong enough to lift it? He can only do one or the other.

If you argue that he can simply make himself weaker in-order to not be able to lift the rock (thus make himself not omnipotent), then the issue is that he cannot then make himself back into an omnipotent--because a non-omnipotent cannot will themselves into an omnipotent.

If, on the other hand, he can simply make himself stronger or weaker at any level, at any time, then he is not really fulfilling the requirement. He's not making a rock too heavy for him to lift. He's simply choosing not to use his full power in order to lift it.

Originally posted by Galan007
facepalm

In essence you are asking if omnipotence is not omnipotence. You may think this is clever, but it is actually nonsensical. It violates the fundamental principle of all thought: the law of non-contradiction. A=A, case closed. Saying omnipotence=/=omnipotence makes as much sense as saying that A=/=A. Your question is the equivalent of asking "Goo Goo gobbledeeewonka snork!?" It makes no sense. How about I ask you if the chair you are sitting on is a chair? I might think I am clever, but you would see very clearly how much of a fool I am. Point: it is idiotic to try and quantify infinite power through the use of very finite analogies. We are human beings. We cannot wrap our heads around omnipotence-- if we could, it'd defeat the concept of omnipotence all together.

The dumbed down answer to your 'question' is that an omnipotent being both can, and cannot lift the boulder. Simple.

This entire conversation is dumb really because it deviates from a comic book discussion to a philosophical/theological debate.

Let h1a8 be. He'll probably end up reporting himself for trolling and be relieved of this thread. None of us will have to dirty our hands.

😂

Originally posted by CosmicComet
True omnipotence is impossible.

Due to logical constraints that are impossible to rationalize as being able to work.

'Omnipotence' as a status can simply be equated to being an omniversal power that is above all others.

How will an omnipotent create a rock too heavy for him to lift and yet still be strong enough to lift it? He can only do one or the other.

If you argue that he can simply make himself weaker in-order to not be able to lift the rock (thus make himself not omnipotent), then the issue is that he cannot then make himself back into an omnipotent--because a non-omnipotent cannot will themselves into an omnipotent.

If, on the other hand, he can simply make himself stronger or weaker at any level, at any time, then he is not really fulfilling the requirement. He's not making a rock too heavy for him to lift. He's simply choosing not to use his full power in order to lift it.

That's just the way that us humans see things though. With logic and physics. An omnipotent being(God, etc) would most likely be capable of doing things impossible for us to even comprehend. I guess it's like the churches say, God can do anything but fail. Even if he fails, it's something he chose to do and succeeded at. Not doing something doesn't really require any power, so I don't see why an omnipotent being would need it. This is kind of a meaningless train of thought though 😂

bump

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Doom.

SBP rips him apart.

Extremely doubtful.