omnipotence vs conceptual forces

[shinigan no sora]

Any omnipotent I.E TOAA or KAMI TENCHI versus conceptual forces such as death and change(chaos)

[NBT]

Concept ceases to exist.Da end.

[Frost ninja]

This isn't really the best section I dont think, but ok.

You eliminate the "concept".
Thats not the same as eliminating the "force".

You stopped the idea of it, but last I checked forces like change and death don't run on ideas. Calling them "conceptual" forces would only apply to death due to the ideal of "after life" and so on.

Change isn't a "concept". Its what happens when... well... anything at all does any form of action. You can't get rid of it, especially when its the root of your own power as an omnipotent.

[Frost ninja]

Just to throw more salt in the mix, "omnipotence" is a conceptual force since its true limits are set only by what we judge is limitless. Its something man created in order to describe forces so beyond themselves in power that we consider them of "infinite" capability, when in reality the only way we can judge this is by our own standard of what is truly "infinite".

Change is something that depends on nothing, being it is the bridge between action. Its a force that cannot be conceptualized being that it has no limit or domain, that anything that IS possible IS affected by change. If nothing else, Change is the only true limitless force.

[shinigan no sora]

Actually since omnipotence is above other concepts can exist without change

An omnipotent can redesign the concept of change and the idea that it represents

Basically an omni can exchange the idea of having a concept like change into nothing

For example an omni can just decide that the source of his power is the lack of change and therefore. Make the need for change non existant

[Frost ninja]

Actually since omnipotence is above other concepts can exist without change

An omnipotent can redesign the concept of change and the idea that it represents

Basically an omni can exchange the idea of having a concept like change into nothing

For example an omni can just decide that the source of his power is the lack of change and therefore. Make the need for change non existant

You say this, but he cannot "decide" the source of his power. As he is an "omnipotent" he does so by our rules, since the only reason he is an omni is because we deemed him one. If he eliminates change, he ceases to be omnipotent since he would require change to have power over his domain.

Above this, eliminating the need for "change" doesn't cease change from happening. If he eliminated the need for change, and then eliminated Discord (change), then change would still be occuring in both his action and the result.

An omnipotent is only capable of what he can accomplish within the limits of his "limitless" power. However, in deciding upon him "omnipotence" we have ceased it entirely since our rules on the matter contradict the ideal itself.

Omnipotence is just a word, we cannot apply it to anyone since doing so would cease their "limitless" by forcing them to define by the rules of what we can deem "omnipotent". If he eliminates change, then he is automatically done since he only exists as a "concept" in the form of omnipotence. The result of anything, the bridge to whatever action may come next in the grand scheme, is change. If you rid the bridges, then you cannot do anything, meaning you cannot be omnipotent. Even under the ideal they "can" eliminate it, the matter of things is even if they do it still exists. Its natural, it doesn't play by the rules we set.

[Frost ninja]

To put it in a line.

We made omnipotence.

Thus, we > omnipotence since without us, the ideal wouldn't exist.

Change is something we can't control, where as we can control what is and isn't an omnipotent.

Thus Change > we > omnipotence.

The fact that you say what he can do is proof enough that we judge what is possible in their power. However, you can't say what will happen in the future, or how it will affect everything else in existence around you, nor can you openly control such things. You can't say "Change can do everything except..." Because it doesn't need to listen to you to keep doing what it does.

Meanwhile, if we change the definition of omnipotence to "A being of almost limitless power" then that is what he is, a being of almost limitless power. He doesn't keep being limitless when we draw the line in the sand on the matter, and if we alter the rules to say "A man of limitless power" then anything aside from a man is no longer defined as an omnipotent.

Past that, theres different judgements on what true omnipotence is. Some consider the christian god an omnipotent (not to offend anyone of that group), but others draw very obvious contradictions between the lines and the only fall-back to defend one's omnipotence is "because he can, he is an omnipotent". This statement robs the power from the being, since the only reason he is powerful is because we consider him as such.

[Shikamaru Nara]

With SnS here.
Omnipotents alter the force, or lack thereof, and impact of an attack and nullifies it.

[Frost ninja]

With SnS here.
Omnipotents alter the force, or lack thereof, and impact of an attack and nullifies it.

Okay. That doesn't mean anything in the topic for right now but I'll call on it later if I have to. We are debating the ideal of if an omnipotent can eliminate change.


They say yes because as an omnipotent, he has limitless power and can do what he wants.

I say no since the ideal of "omnipotent" is a concept, meanwhile change is a force than cannot be altered manually, and exists outside of "non-existance" because it is a natural force and doesn't abide by the usual rules of things. Also that as an omnipotent, he requires change in order to maintain his power, even if he doesn't want to.

Basically its a "He is god" and "He is god because we say he is god" style of debate.

[Shikamaru Nara]

It does apply.
The attack in this situation IS the change.

[Frost ninja]

It does apply.
The attack in this situation IS the change.

The change of what?

[Cult of Personality]

By definition omnipotence can not fail to do something unless it specifically chooses to.

An omnipotent being can do anything without limit or restriction. Period.

Frost Ninja's "arguments" are meaningless from start to finish. Just rehashing the same old tired and annoying arguments that got My Little Pony threads banned, I.E. Discord > omnipotent, which is axiomatically untrue.

And since we all know that Frost Ninja is never going to admit to being wrong, I vote this thread be locked with extreme prejudice.

[Ultimate combatant]

The change of what?

Doesn`t matter. If omnipotent wishes there can be change. Omnipotent decides whether there is change.

It decides whether it dominates concepts, whether it destroys concepts, whether it creates them, whether he does whatever else he wants,...

In other words, Omnipotent wins!!! :D

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

With SnS here.
Omnipotents alter the force, or lack thereof, and impact of an attack and nullifies it.

Just infract frost for trolling and be done with it

anyone who thinks an omnipoten cant erase chaos from existence or death or anything really either is biase beyond belief or is trolling

[Frost ninja]

P:

For someone who upholds the rules so strictly, IWD, you sure are coming shorthanded.
I'm challenging the idea of "proof without proof", or rather, assumptions. Something you went 5 pages with me about because you said evidence without proof takes a backseat to proof with evidence.

So I want more than a definition of a word to accept it. Perhaps some proof to the matter, more than just a word and "heres what it means".

Wheres the proof of an omnipotence? I can prove change just by doing anything at all, and I cannot prevent change. I can, however, prevent an omnipotent simply by erasing the word. Hell, I could openly claim Discord removes the term "omnipotence" from existance and thats the done deal since such things don't exist outside of man's judgement and a few words in a dictionary.

You can't erase the "concept" of change and it magically disappears. You can erase the "concept" of omnipotence, or openly change it, and its as feeble as you decide it to be. Change is not under the same grip, and thus the power of change is openly more powerful than the ideal of omnipotence.

[Ultimate combatant]

P:

For someone who upholds the rules so strictly, IWD, you sure are coming shorthanded.
I'm challenging the idea of "proof without proof", or rather, assumptions. Something you went 5 pages with me about because you said evidence without proof takes a backseat to proof with evidence.

So I want more than a definition of a word to accept it. Perhaps some proof to the matter, more than just a word and "heres what it means".

Wheres the proof of an omnipotence? I can prove change just by doing anything at all, and I cannot prevent change. I can, however, prevent an omnipotent simply by erasing the word. Hell, I could openly claim Discord removes the term "omnipotence" from existance and thats the done deal since such things don't exist outside of man's judgement and a few words in a dictionary.

You can't erase the "concept" of change and it magically disappears. You can erase the "concept" of omnipotence, or openly change it, and its as feeble as you decide it to be. Change is not under the same grip, and thus the power of change is openly more powerful than the ideal of omnipotence.

Omnipotent who couldn`t erase or destroy concepts or defeat them wouldn`t be Omnipotent, by definition!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

I'm not saying "Discord beats TOAA because omnipotent is a concept", what I'm saying is "TOAA doesn't simply beat discord BECAUSE he is an omnipotent." Whatever his feats have shown is a seperate issue, but just going off of a word we can benchmark on anything with power beyond our own imagination is a shoddy way to debate at best.

"Discord is an omnipotent, so its a tie". Why not? Theres no limit to what he can, per se, do. Theres no feated limit to his range, he has open toonforce and what could be pegged an omnipresence thanks to his "quip-port". The only reason you'd argue against it is because "he hasn't shown it".

So then show me feats and I'll openly agree TOAA likely does beat Discord. But not because he is an "omnipotent". If we are here to argue omnipotence vs change, the topic name should be "conceptual forces vs change".

[Ultimate combatant]

I'm not saying "Discord beats TOAA because omnipotent is a concept", what I'm saying is "TOAA doesn't simply beat discord BECAUSE he is an omnipotent." Whatever his feats have shown is a seperate issue, but just going off of a word we can benchmark on anything with power beyond our own imagination is a shoddy way to debate at best.

"Discord is an omnipotent, so its a tie". Why not? Theres no limit to what he can, per se, do. Theres no feated limit to his range, he has open toonforce and what could be pegged an omnipresence thanks to his "quip-port". The only reason you'd argue against it is because "he hasn't shown it".

So then show me feats and I'll openly agree TOAA likely does beat Discord. But not because he is an "omnipotent". If we are here to argue omnipotence vs change, the topic name should be "conceptual forces vs change".

Is Discord Omnipotent?!! :D

[Frost ninja]

Omnipotent who couldn`t erase or destroy concepts or defeat them wouldn`t be Omnipotent, by definition!!! :D

They already aren't omnipotent because their "infinite" power can be defined. Likewise, an omnipotent cannot beat another omnipotent, so they still aren't omnipotent by definition.

If you want to talk definition, then you'll instantly lose since the definition is in-itself contradictory and doesn't account for more than one omnipotent being in existance. Hence why people avoid Omni vs Omni threads like the plague.

Look up the "TOAA vs All" thread and see that the term omnipotent lost meaning entirely in that thread and people scrambled to figure out the scope of infinite.

[Frost ninja]

Is Discord Omnipotent?!! :D

Does it matter? If I say yes, whats your counter?
Would it happen to be the same as mine if you say "TOAA is omnipotent"?
Is your counter "Prove it?"

Because if so, then your answer is as good as mine if we go off of definition alone.

[Ultimate combatant]

Does it matter? If I say yes, whats your counter?
Would it happen to be the same as mine if you say "TOAA is omnipotent"?
Is your counter "Prove it?"

Because if so, then your answer is as good as mine if we go off of definition alone.

If he fights Omnipotent, it does matter. If he is not Omnipotent and fights Omnipotent, Omnipotent wins.
If you say yes, I don`t have counter because I have no idea who Discord is.

No, I have no such speech tricks. I don`t use talk to prevent someone from expressing his/her opinion.

Whether Discord is Omnipotent, I don`t know.

All I am saying is, Omnipotent can defeat any non-Omnipotent including Goku!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

If he fights Omnipotent, it does matter. If he is not Omnipotent and fights Omnipotent, Omnipotent wins.
If you say yes, I don`t have counter because I have no idea who Discord is.

No, I have no such speech tricks. I don`t use talk to prevent someone from expressing his/her opinion.

Whether Discord is Omnipotent, I don`t know.

All I am saying is, Omnipotent can defeat any non-Omnipotent including Goku!!! :D


Well yeah, Goku gets beaten by a lot of people.

But saying omnipotent vs omnipotent, omnipotent wins is... Hm...
Also claiming someone is omnipotent and them actually being omnipotent are two different things, if TOAA has feats of it then thats fine and dandy, but otherwise claims must be reinforced by feats.

Kami Tenchi vs TOAA, who wins?

[Ultimate combatant]

Omnipotent vs Omnipotent ~ The winner cannot be predicted by us. It is something we are not capable of comprehending.

Omnipotent vs non-Omnipotent ~ Omnipotent wins

non-Omnipotent vs non-Omnipotent ~ This is pretty much general debate much like ones we usually see. Sometimes the winner is obvious (for example, Naruto vs Tenten) and sometimes it is not (for example, Goku vs Superman)!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

Goku vs superman is obvious... ._.
As far as omnipotent vs omnipotent goes, the point is that if there is a "winner" then the idea of omnipotence ceases to exist since then a line would be drawn in the power.

[Ultimate combatant]

Goku vs superman is obvious... ._.
As far as omnipotent vs omnipotent goes, the point is that if there is a "winner" then the idea of omnipotence ceases to exist since then a line would be drawn in the power.

That is because you are trying to use logic.

When it comes to Omnipotents, logic doesn`t work!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

It actually works fine, in fact it works almost too well since omnipotence is a conceptual force in itself. If people insist the definition makes the man, then we cannot forfiet logic in the case.

If we leave feats at the door to claim "omnipotent wins because he is omnipotent" and nothing else, then one can pose an omnipotent vs omnipotent and note that, by definition, there cannot be omnipotence since both the overcoming and the failure to fully overcome his opponent would be limiting his power.

[Ultimate combatant]

It actually works fine, in fact it works almost too well since omnipotence is a conceptual force in itself. If people insist the definition makes the man, then we cannot forfiet logic in the case.

If we leave feats at the door to claim "omnipotent wins because he is omnipotent" and nothing else, then one can pose an omnipotent vs omnipotent and note that, by definition, there cannot be omnipotence since both the overcoming and the failure to fully overcome his opponent would be limiting his power.

We are over assuming if we think two Omnipotents would want to fight!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

We are over assuming if we think two Omnipotents would want to fight!!! :D

We are over assuming if we think Goku and Superman would want to fight as well, but we are in the BG.

[Ultimate combatant]

We are over assuming if we think Goku and Superman would want to fight as well, but we are in the BG.

That is true as well. This is why most fights here can never be "real". The wishes of someone who doesn`t want to fight would change how one fights.

But Omnipotent vs Omnipotent is even more. You cannot force Omnipotent to fight!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

That is well true. This is why most fights here can never be objective.

But Omnipotent vs Omnipotent is even more. You cannot force Omnipotent to fight!!! :D

Yes we can simply by putting their name in the title and a "vs" inbetween.
It isn't a question of what we can't do, but rather what they can do.

[321zigzag3]

My reaction to this entire thread.
http://nmcmedia.org/video-gallery/thumbs/whut1_360.jpg

[Frost ninja]

Playing with crayons?

[Ultimate combatant]

Yes we can simply by putting their name in the title and a "vs" inbetween.
It isn't a question of what we can't do, but rather what they can do.

But since they are Omnipotents they can decide just to let it be two written names and "vs" in between and simply not fight!!! :D

[Frost ninja]

:L

Enough of this.
Point being is just being an omnipotent by name doesn't mean you automatically win everything. Without feats, its just a word.

[Ultimate combatant]

:L

Enough of this.
Point being is just being an omnipotent by name doesn't mean you automatically win everything. Without feats, its just a word.

That I mostly agree with. But you`d need infinite amount of feats to prove anything about Omnipotency at all.

Anyway, I agree we should end this specific debate!!! :D

[Shikamaru Nara]

:L

Enough of this.
Point being is just being an omnipotent by name doesn't mean you automatically win everything. Without feats, its just a word.

Yes it does.

[Frost ninja]

Yes it does.
What makes an omnipotent?
Aside from someone calling them an omnipotent of course.

[321zigzag3]

While omnipotence in fiction has that relativity going about it depending on the character.

For example in fiction there is relative omnipotence such as:

Shuma Gorath is omnipotent only in his chaos dimension.

Or an Universal level only omnipotent, compared to that of Eternity or even Living Tribunal.

However we are talking about true omnipotence as in Omnipotent of literally everything.

If that is the case, why do we need feats for that?

[Shikamaru Nara]

What makes an omnipotent?
Aside from someone calling them an omnipotent of course.

Precisely that.
If the author says it, it's true. :lol:

It's different than hype.

[Frost ninja]

However we are talking about true omnipotence as in Omnipotent of literally everything.

If that is the case, why do we need feats for that?

Because to disprove their omnipotence all we would have to do is pit them against another omnipotent.

As I said, Kami Tenchi vs TOAA, who would win?
Or TOAA vs all, who would win?

And theres no proofing he is indeed omnipotent of everything

[Frost ninja]

Precisely that.
If the author says it, it's true. :lol:

It's different than hype.

"Word of god" requires feats to be validated.
Otherwise what happens when the author claims naruto to be a god, or edward elrich with philosopher stone overdose? People step in and say "nope, feats say otherwise".

[321zigzag3]

Because to disprove their omnipotence all we would have to do is pit them against another omnipotent.

Hence the whole "relative aspect" in that too only because they are multiple authors creating multiple fictional series.

Its the only reason why there are multiple "omnipotents".

While it is true no one can actually fathom what omnipotence is.

As I said, Kami Tenchi vs TOAA, who would win?
Or TOAA vs all, who would win?

There is no winner in that one.

The latter is just an endless loophole of debate with immense unnecessary circle jerking but anyway we are not discussing that.

THis is about Discord.

[Frost ninja]

This is about change.
Can an omnipotent eliminate the source of their power, can a conceptual force (omni) eliminate an actual force?

[Cult of Personality]

By definition omnipotence can not fail to do something unless it specifically chooses to.

An omnipotent being can do anything without limit or restriction. Period.

Frost Ninja's "arguments" are meaningless from start to finish. Just rehashing the same old tired and annoying arguments that got My Little Pony threads banned, I.E. Discord > omnipotent, which is axiomatically untrue.

And since we all know that Frost Ninja is never going to admit to being wrong, I vote this thread be locked with extreme prejudice.

This is my infallible logic and it still stands.
Grovel grovel grovel. :lol:

[321zigzag3]

This is about change.
Can an omnipotent eliminate the source of their power, can a conceptual force (omni) eliminate an actual force?

You want feats?

Alright what has Discord done?

[Frost ninja]

nbfkldsngf,dsg

I already went through how your idea is flawed in the ideal of omnipotence being a conceptual force stuck to following the rules we've set for it.

Using the word "by definition" invalidates your argument since your only case resides on what we have designated an omnipotent to be. In other words, omnipotence is only as power as human comprehension. Change goes far beyond that marker.

[Frost ninja]

You want feats?

Alright what has Discord done?

Why do I need feats? As you said, an omnipotent doesn't need feats.
So shall we stare at each other, or will you say I need to feat him an omnipotent so I can ask the same of you?

[Cult of Personality]

No you didn't, you've just spouted the same BS that's been dsebunked time and time again when you tried to use it to make Discord omnipotent+.

It was garbage then and it's more than garbage now.

Once again:S since we all know that Frost Ninja is never going to admit to being wrong, I vote this thread be locked with extreme prejudice.

[Shikamaru Nara]

The thread will remain open for now.

[Cult of Personality]

Even though FN is plainly trolling and is doing nothing but causing trouble?

[321zigzag3]

Why do I need feats? As you said, an omnipotent doesn't need feats.

I am only doing it because you wanted it.

So shall we stare at each other, or will you say I need to feat him an omnipotent so I can ask the same of you?

Are you really truly going to argue which state of "infinite concepts" are higher?

Even without feats.

[Frost ninja]

Fair enough. But lets start with TOAA since I've listed what discord has earlier in the topic.


I'll argue the ideal of concept versus an actual thing.

Feats are the only way to go according to the rules of the BG.

@cult
Prove me wrong then, prove a concept limited by human comprehension can outdo an actual force that not only provides the basis for an omnipotent to exist but exists despite the existance of others of its kind. Change doesn't depend on being the only one of its kind to keep itself validated, after all. I'd say it persists beyond requiring an omnipotent to be the only one. Plus change exists everywhere, even beyond what we deem possible or impossible.

[Bacon]

Even though FN is plainly trolling and is doing nothing but causing trouble?
As long as she's not breaking any rules, she can be as stubborn as she pleases.

[Cult of Personality]

It's impossible to prove omnipotence with feats, which is why omnipotent characters are rarely if ever used in serious vs matches and when they do, they cause lots of arguments because some yahoo insists that X character isn't actually omnipotent and their favorite character (like *picks character at random* say, Discord from My Little Pony) is for no reason other than because they say so.

Fancy that.

[Frost ninja]

Or because people don't like backless claims.

If you can't win outside of "omnipotent gg" then we might as well peg Edward on philso-stone overdose on the same tier as TOAA since the author marked him as a "god".

EDIT: Or Discord, since there was no proven limit to his powers.

[Cult of Personality]

No, it's definitely what I said. Assuming a character has no limits because he has shown no limits is a no limits fallacy. Omnipotent characters are characters designated to bypass this fallacy because it is a part of their character. Their omnipotence can not be defied or redefined . If it can, then they aren't omnipotent. By accepting the premise that such a character exists, you can not therefore argue against it without selectively denying this very facet of the character, which I believe is called a Straw Man fallacy.

Omnipotence is infinite by definition. You pretend that this can be changed by our perception, but it is not any more than the concept of cold can be redefined as broccoli.

Supposing we can arbitrarily decided that concepts are other than what they are for no reason other than to win an argument on the internet: Rather than being the act or instance of making or becoming different, change is in fact the muscles responsible for excreting solid waste from the human body.

Similarly, conceptual is just another word for "covered in butter". Nothing more, nothing less.

This thread has no point. There is nothing to be accomplished here. No one is going to redefine omnipotence just because you're butthurt that Discord isn't all powerful.

Persistence is not a substitute for skill and rational thinking.

[Ultimate combatant]

If Author states character is Omnipotent you should assume so.

If narrator states so, the same thing!!! :D

[Cult of Personality]

Save in cases where this is directly contradicted by actions currently being commented on,

[Frost ninja]

For all of your claim, you said two things...

"Their omnipotence cannot be defined or redefined. If it can, then they aren't omnipotent."

And then

"Omnipotence is infinite by definition"

By defining it, you've just proven theres no validity behind "omnipotence". Further, calling them omnipotent ceases their omnipotence as your defining them by a word.


The rest of it is pretty flat, same old denial. I don't really need to flaunt "skill and rational thinking" when your post wins me the point. I could care less about discord tbh, I care about people making feated claims in accordance to the rules, so the easiest way to do so is to give you a situation you can't hope to beat otherwise.

Going off of definition to describe something that, as you just said, can't be defined and still maintain itself to combat something that goes far beyond the scope of power that the word would entail is all thats necessary. Theres no way to claim "omnipotence" without sacrificing omnipotence for the character by defining them under that word and our rules of what applies to it.

[Cult of Personality]

Blah blah Straw Man blah blah


Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.

[Frost ninja]

Must be hard to contradict yourself, and have no answer to fall back on.
But hey, calling straw man on a direct counter to your statement will work for you. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose. I didn't really misrepresent, nor did I bother to only quote certain parts to misrepresent your statement.

I quoted the parts that were necessary to counteract your point, but I left breaking your post to you.

I didn't even need to make a real rebuttal, in fact my entire post could've been done with just your two quotes.

[Cult of Personality]

Irony: verb: PEE-zuh: Simian teapots place great emphasis on pie making

In the Wizard of Oz, there was a scarecrow. A man of straw. A straw man if you will.

What was it he lacked? Was it a heart? No. Courage? Nah. A way home? So close. No, it was a brain wasn't it? :lol: :lol:


By accepting the premise that such a character exists, you can not therefore argue against it without selectively denying this very facet of the character, which I believe is called a Straw Man fallacy.


J'accuse! You are guilty of constructing a straw man. You have attempted to selectively disregard the basic premise of omnipotence in your attempt to rebutt said omnipotence and in doing so have proven yourself (not for the first time) foolish in excess.

[Nigoyukai]

Oh dear.... an "omnipotence vs" debate

[Frost ninja]

By accepting such a character exists, you cannot claim one cannot argue against it because the facets of the character cannot be completely defined and thus, are all open for disagreement as theres no way to refute any point made. I can argue against it all day because its something thats entire existance is the ideal of definition.

Plus I never accepting such a being existed, and have in fact argued to the point that not only do no such beings exist, but the entire premise of "omnipotence" is a flawed and unusable facet of a character in general to no rebuttal of merit.

I'm not straw manning, I'm debating a point to which you are commiting a straw man by misrepresenting my argument.

[Cult of Personality]

Refusal to accept premise of "omnipotent" +1

Trying to define omnipotence as something other than what it is for the purposes of somehow "debunking" it. +1

Insisting on dragging it out when it's clear to anyone that you're wrong. +1

[Cult of Personality]

Don't like omnipotence as a concept, don't use it. Don't go into threads about it. You'll get nothing but people who are willing and able to debunk your silly attempts at straw manning your way around it. Everyone goes home happy.

[Ultimate combatant]

This thread`s debate is finished and should be locked!!! :D

[Cult of Personality]

Shoulda been locked the instant it was made.

[Frost ninja]

Sorry, I left to nom chips.

"Don't like omnipotence as a concept?" I love it as a concept because its a weak and feeble word when its a concept. Your entire point, neigh your entire argument is around the premise of what a word means. Mine is all about how its just a word.

Discord is an omnipotent.
I said it, and looking at the word and how Discord seems to fit it, that means that TOAA can't beat him without destroying the concept of "omnipotence".

Your counter is "Something something flame something something straw man"
Followed by "something something wank something fanboyism something flame"

All of which is fine and dandy until you realize your arguing a word against something that goes beyond words, then it turns into

"I can't rationalize that the term omnipotence is a label and self-defeating in its purpose, but I'm going to point and say you don't understand what omnipotence is, thus turning your argument into mush."

To which I counter "I know what it is to the point where your only fallback is a definition limited by human comprehension"

"OH, but to accept it might exist means you can't argue against it"

"Or I can accept the term exists and argue against its lack of ability to substitute in for a facet."


I like debating against Devil's lawyer. Even when he is in right field, he can work around obsticles in his path. You haven't moved yet, and its fine that way because your not getting much of anywhere. Can't proof him to be omnipotent? Then proof him to be more powerful than discord.

But if all you have is "he is called omnipotent" then you might as well go and nom some chips yourself. Thats an old hat, and as much as you'd hate to admit it I've already brought into question the validity of simply terming someone something.

Which brings me to my previous point.
Discord is omnipotent. What can you do about it? If we are using words as evidence in here, then you are stuck.

[Frost ninja]

Also I didnt make this topic, so yeah <_<

On second thought, lock this. Its not common enough that something like this will occur, so theres no point in praddling on about it like old ninnies right now. If the time comes we can discuss it further, but as for now I tire of going in circles.

[Cult of Personality]

No, by claiming that omnipotence is "just a word" you are selectively denying parts of it in an attempt to get around it. Hence, Straw Man.

More Discord wank.

Oh look, another straw man. You could at least have the decency to pretend you're not using them.

I have not begun to flame you. When I'm flaming you, you'll know it. Generally I use the word "idiot" alot, but in a pinch I may get anatomical.

This next part is just you soliloquizing about how great your straw man arguments are and how out of my depth I am and aren't I just a stupid face. I know what everyone is thinking. Where does FN get all that straw?

I move when there's need for me to move. All you've done is try and straw man your way around the basic premise of the argument, and when that failed, straw man your way around me. So there's no reason to change my stance since you're not doing anything to challenge it.

You're not the first person to question the ability to properly...I don't know the word...like categorize but not...the concept of omnipotence and you won't be the last.

Regardless of whether you believe that defining something as infinite somehow proves it is not infinite, the fact will remain that omnipotence is infinite, all powerful, all everything forever and ever and there is nothing you can ever do to change that.

Discord can be accepted as omnipotent when the writer says so. Until then it's just wank by someone who doesn't want to admit that Discord is capable of losing.

So please, stop.

[Frost ninja]

Blah blah, you took so long to type all of that up.
So if you want to keep going, I can. Your argument is non-existant by this point and all your doing is trying to break down small pieces of mine.

I can deny omnipotence as a whole by claiming its "just a word". Perhaps you don't know what a strawman truly is, or perhaps thats the only fallacy you know aside from no-limits and you believe it applies. Good and jolly, you are more knowledgeable than some debaters.

However, taking your entire premise and turning it down in the light that its a definition and has no existant backing aside is no straw-man. I can't change omnipotence? Of course I can, after all, the people who made the word changed it as well.

I'm fully aware Discord is capable of losing, I have no quarrel with that. I do, however, have issues with people using words and believing thats the end-all. So whats your premise?

"
Regardless of whether you believe that defining something as infinite somehow proves it is not infinite, the fact will remain that omnipotence is infinite, all powerful, all everything forever and ever and there is nothing you can ever do to change that." Should about sum it up, yes?
So I can avoid "straw-manning" you, as you should claim, I'd like you to summerize your statement into simpler terms, perhaps something so simple that it could fit into one or two sentences instead of 4 or 5 paragraphs?

That way if I am straw-manning, it'll be blatantly obvious instead of what you believe is straw-manning. I've already done it plenty of times in the whole "Omnipotence itself is a concept, Change is a open force beyond control." statement, whats your basis?

[Frost ninja]

Otherwise I've already asked this be closed since I'm honestly too lazy to keep pressing the point and its too uncommon to keep going on about.

[Bacon]

lol frosty, use the edit button

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The thread will remain open for now.

As long as she's not breaking any rules, she can be as stubborn as she pleases.

you both have a job to do under these rules she must be punished (http://naruto.viz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112599)

oh and being stubborn when you're wrong would count towards trolling as far as those rules are concerned

this section will no longer protect opinions that are stupid or misinformed or biased, you have a duty to uphold the rules do you not? end this farce and rake her over the coals

[Devils Lawyer]

If an omnipotent can be defeated then it's not an omnipotent. It really is that simple.

[Shikamaru Nara]

I didn't say she wasnt being a troll or whatever. The thread barely had a life.
Anyway I do agree it is time for a lock.

[Wooster]

Heat death! An omnipotent changes the entropy to the universe to it highest level.

Change ceases to exist. Also, there is no power to resist this(except other omnipotent) as ALL powers is even spread through the entire universe.

Also, there are no conceptual forces as there is no one to think them as thinking would require a non-heat death universe. The omnipotent need not consider any thought or conceptual force, so those also cease to exist. :ugeek: