Galactus vs Zeus

This is a really great debate, congrats to you all. You don't see them like this anymore around here.

@whydama said:

I dont think so. That was essentially the Hilbert Hotel. The number of odd numbers is half the number of natural numbers

Yes , it appears that people here are ignorant on the subject of transfinite numbers . Which is exactly the sort of reasoning Kubik used for explaining the concept of levels of infinity to Kosmos :

@Freefa11: No, not really. Absolute Omnipotence is not a sense of nonsense, just transcendence we have not yet understood (and I doubt we ever will). To be honest, we've only scratched the surface despite the scholars and philosophers out there. And according to Hindu philosophy, and similarly (and many other beliefs from others), taking infinity away from infinity leaves behind infinity.

@Hyper_God: Orphism is arguably not a "monotheistic" religion, and at the same time, arguably is. Zeus remains to be the only "true" being in Orphism, everything else is Zeus in the first place, and what not, though personally I would not speak of Orphism to be monotheism.. But it's arguable (not too much so in my opinion).

Thanks @Killemall: but I don't see how that comes even close to a multiversal feat.....

@Hyper_God

I'm not saying that levels of infinity are BS, I said that if you consider Omnipotence as non-sense with many paradoxes, why would levels of infinity be any different? What you did is that you approved of the Marvel levels of infinity concept, but you dismissed the infinite-power concept. Besides, I would agree totally with you on the levels of infinity in fiction. I would agree that being infinite infinities is > infinity. But only as long as it is fictional (Marvel/Dc/HP Lovecraft/SW etc..). Because to me it doesn't really make sense.

It doesn't matter whether you dismiss Cantor's theory as BS because during its inception many other far more qualified people than you made a similar folly .

And many far more qualified people than you dismissed Cantor's theory as non-sense.

Yet today it is accepted by majority of the mathematical academia and taught in the relevant university level math courses .

Thanks, but I can read wikipedia also.

The human species is far more knowledgeable than you give it credit for .

LOL what?

@ShootingNova said:

@Hyper_God: Orphism is arguably not a "monotheistic" religion, and at the same time, arguably is. Zeus remains to be the only "true" being in Orphism, everything else is Zeus in the first place, and what not, though personally I would not speak of Orphism to be monotheism.. But it's arguable (not too much so in my opinion).

If it ultimately comes down to personal interpretation , then every single argument I have made in this thread is valid(which in itself is hardly a surprise as I have quite the penchant for always being right) .

@kingkronos said:

Thanks @Killemall: but I don't see how that comes even close to a multiversal feat.....

@Hyper_God

I'm not saying that levels of infinity are BS, I said that if you consider Omnipotence as non-sense with many paradoxes, why would levels of infinity be any different? What you did is that you approved of the Marvel levels of infinity concept, but you dismissed the infinite-power concept. Besides, I would agree totally with you on the levels of infinity in fiction. I would agree that being infinite infinities is > infinity. But only as long as it is fictional (Marvel/Dc/HP Lovecraft/SW etc..). Because to me it doesn't really make sense.

Read The Mighty Thor Annual before making such a nonsensical judgement . Oblivion stated that a conflict of that magnitude would mean the end of all universes and would make the Chaos King's feat seem like prologue in comparison . Everything that I have stated in the last two sentences is true and in complete context of the storyline .

Because omnipotence is a retarded concept which is pretty much useless in technical academic disciplines . Apart from providing philosphers with a bit of brainsorm exercise via the Omnipotence Paradox, its a theological invention which is of absolutely no value to real life paradigms . Transfinite numbers on the other hand are an integral part of abstract math . And you are further displaying your grandiose level of ignorance by relegating them to only "fictional concepts" or "Marvel concepts" when the truth of the matter is that their unique nature merely caused Marvel cosmic fiction to incorporate in some of their storylines . Its an integral academic

It doesn't matter whether you dismiss Cantor's theory as BS because during its inception many other far more qualified people than you made a similar folly .

And many far more qualified people than you dismissed Cantor's theory as non-sense.

Which is more or less the same thing I said in the quoted text in your reply . However that's not the point because those experts(during their time anyways) opinions didn't prevent transfinite numbers from being accepted by the mainstream mathematical community .

Yet today it is accepted by majority of the mathematical academia and taught in the relevant university level math courses .

Thanks, but I can read wikipedia also.

While it is quite a surprise that you can read at all , what does that have to do with anything ?

The human species is far more knowledgeable than you give it credit for .

LOL what?

You claimed that humans don't have the knowledge of infinity when the whole field of limits , derivatives , differential and integral calculus etc. were developed around the concept of infinity . The theory of transfinite numbers which have greatly helped advance our understanding of number sets and all revolves around infinities big and small(Cantor's theory which I have been talking about this whole while) .

My response to this ridiculous assertion was an appropriate one .

@Hyper_God:

Because omnipotence is a retarded concept which is pretty much useless in technical academic disciplines .

Okay, here's how I'm gonna reply to that: If you are a stubborn person who doesn't want to be convinced, and who would say that "U R WRONG I AM RIGHT" please save both of us some time, and just don't reply anymore. You say that Omnipotence is a stupid concept, and levels of infinity aren't. Okay, that's your opinion, keep it to yourself.

You claimed that humans don't have the knowledge of infinity when the whole field of limits , derivatives , differential and integral calculus etc. were developed around the concept of infinity . The theory of transfinite numbers which have greatly helped advance our understanding of number sets and all revolves around infinities big and small(Cantor's theory which I have been talking about this whole while) .

LOL, you think just because it is used in mathematics, that makes infinity comprehensible? Okay, since you seem to claim you know much about infinity. Let me ask you a simple question: What is infinity? You do realize that infinity is composed of two-words? Do you know that it is spoken in a negative sense, and not in a direct positive sense? In-finite. It is the negation of finite. However our mind can only grasp objects. Objects by definition are finite. So how could we comprehend a concept like infinity? And seriously drop the "it is accepted by mathematics" argument. What does this have to do with anything? Levels of infinity is accepted as a concept, great, so is omnipotence.

My response to this ridiculous assertion was an appropriate one.

Clearly. You don't even know what infinity is. Claiming that infinity is used in mathematics doesn't change the fact that it is comprehensible by the finite human mind. Next time, please don't try and make yourself as if you know everything, saying that omnipotence is a stupid concept, and levels of infinity is not.

This became the dumbest debate I have ever read here on this Board. Congrats to everyone on this page for being on drugs.

@kingkronos said:

@Hyper_God:

Because omnipotence is a retarded concept which is pretty much useless in technical academic disciplines .

Okay, here's how I'm gonna reply to that: If you are a stubborn person who doesn't want to be convinced, and who would say that "U R WRONG I AM RIGHT" please save both of us some time, and just don't reply anymore. You say that Omnipotence is a stupid concept, and levels of infinity aren't. Okay, that's your opinion, keep it to yourself.

Yes , and the relevant reasons based on fact have already been provided for both claims . I don't say that I am right , I know that I am right because it is just the way it is . My opinion is grounded in facts and good knowledge of the feats(in their proper context) of the character I favor , unlike yours .

You claimed that humans don't have the knowledge of infinity when the whole field of limits , derivatives , differential and integral calculus etc. were developed around the concept of infinity . The theory of transfinite numbers which have greatly helped advance our understanding of number sets and all revolves around infinities big and small(Cantor's theory which I have been talking about this whole while) .

LOL, you think just because it is used in mathematics, that makes infinity comprehensible? Okay, since you seem to claim you know much about infinity. Let me ask you a simple question: What is infinity? You do realize that infinity is composed of two-words? Do you know that it is spoken in a negative sense, and not in a direct positive sense? In-finite. It is the negation of finite. However our mind can only grasp objects. Objects by definition are finite. So how could we comprehend a concept like infinity? And seriously drop the "it is accepted by mathematics" argument. What does this have to do with anything? Levels of infinity is accepted as a concept, great, so is omnipotence.

So you're shifting goalposts now ? First you claim that humans have no knowledge of infinity . I prove you wrong by citing relevant real-life subjects on the matter which validate my point and disprove yours .So in order to avoid being embarrassed and deconstructed further you now demand whether we can comprehend infinity ? Sorry but entertaining dodgers and goalpost shifters isn't my cup of tea .

My response to this ridiculous assertion was an appropriate one.

Clearly. You don't even know what infinity is. Claiming that infinity is used in mathematics doesn't change the fact that it is comprehensible by the finite human mind. Next time, please don't try and make yourself as if you know everything, saying that omnipotence is a stupid concept, and levels of infinity is not.

I know enough about infinity to see that every claim I have made in this thread is correct . My opinion is sound and I trust it unlike you .

Galactus wins .

@Hyper_God: I never said that. And it would do well for you to not have the hint of boasting in your posts. Regardless, this battle is not Orphic Zeus so we are straying off-topic here.

@P0rtal said:

This became the dumbest debate I have ever read here on this Board. Congrats to everyone on this page for being on drugs.

And I have never seen you present anything better, so it would do well for you to let this thread be unless you have anything of value to say here, sir.

@Hyper_God:

Yes , and the relevant reasons based on fact have already been provided for both claims . I don't say that I am right , I know that I am right because it is just the way it is . My opinion is grounded in facts and good knowledge of the feats(in their proper context) of the character I favor , unlike yours .

A typical childish reaction.

So you're shifting goalposts now ? First you claim that humans have no knowledge of infinity . I prove you wrong by citing relevant real-life subjects on the matter which validate my point and disprove yours .So in order to avoid being embarrassed and deconstructed further you now demand whether we can comprehend infinity ? Sorry but entertaining dodgers and goalpost shifters isn't my cup of tea .

You said we have knowledge of infinity, I refuted you by asking some simple questions, and you denied them by saying I'm changing the topic, great excuse.

This is my last post, and I won't answer you further, and I know that you would still insist you are right, but just won't go down to your level of mentality.

@kingkronos said:

@Hyper_God:

Yes , and the relevant reasons based on fact have already been provided for both claims . I don't say that I am right , I know that I am right because it is just the way it is . My opinion is grounded in facts and good knowledge of the feats(in their proper context) of the character I favor , unlike yours .

A typical childish reaction.

To a typical childish ranting .

So you're shifting goalposts now ? First you claim that humans have no knowledge of infinity . I prove you wrong by citing relevant real-life subjects on the matter which validate my point and disprove yours .So in order to avoid being embarrassed and deconstructed further you now demand whether we can comprehend infinity ? Sorry but entertaining dodgers and goalpost shifters isn't my cup of tea .

You said we have knowledge of infinity, I refuted you by asking some simple questions, and you denied them by saying I'm changing the topic, great excuse.

You didn't refute jacksh1t . You asked whether or not we have knowledge of infinity and I proved you wrong on the previous page . You then shift goalposts to save face . And you accuse me of making excuses . Oh the irony .

This is my last post, and I won't answer you further, and I know that you would still insist you are right, but just won't go down to your level of mentality.

Concession accepted .

@ShootingNova said:

@Hyper_God: I never said that. And it would do well for you to not have the hint of boasting in your posts. Regardless, this battle is not Orphic Zeus so we are straying off-topic here.

You did imply that . If a thing can "arguably" be something and not be the same something , then its open to interpretation whether or not it is . Its mythological Zeus , with the exact version unspecified . It very well could be the Orphic version .

@Hyper_God: He said Homer's Zeus:

@BigCimmerian said:

Homer's because he is the only Zeus I've ever read.

@ShootingNova: Alright . I was more focused on the OP and didn't see that post .

@Hyper_God: Okay.

@whydama: @Hyper_God said:

@whydama said:

I dont think so. That was essentially the Hilbert Hotel. The number of odd numbers is half the number of natural numbers

Yes , it appears that people here are ignorant on the subject of transfinite numbers . Which is exactly the sort of reasoning Kubik used for explaining the concept of levels of infinity to Kosmos :

The Hilbert Hotel is not some transcendental equation that defies human understanding, it is understood pretty simply and easily with set theory. Heck, the Zoroastrians basically worked out a very basic version of the idea of set theory theologically hundreds of years ago when they described Ahura Mazda and Ahriman as both being infinite, yet limited in that they did not contain anything of each other (basically, set of positive integers vs set of negative integers kind of idea). Of course, the Zoroastrians also made it pretty clear Ahura Mazda would eventually win (of course, I'm sure they'd also say that being infinitely evil doesn't mean being infinitely powerful anyway).

The thing is, unless you can explain to me how or why set theory applies to the omnipotence paradox, the simple fact that it exists and can resolve some issues with infinity doesn't mean you can automatically resolve all issues with infinity just by mentioning that it exists. The problem with the heavy stones or immovable objects is that those situations are about infinite physical forces being opposed by other infinite physical forces, not infinite sets of forces running into different infinite sets of forces.

It's basically straight up vector addition.

@kingkronos: The advantage of dealing with infinity and infinite sets mathematically is that it basically puts it into the domain of pure abstracted logic, devoid of any philosophical or theological bias. When you put a name on it, like Zeus, God, Allah, etc, people can get defensive if you start to question whether or not it is the greatest, most amazing thing that could ever possibly exist. Reduce it to a sideways-8, and people tend to calm down about it and are more free to approach the subject without burning each other. Math is also, obviously, a highly systematic way to approach it.

I'm not sure why the idea of different levels of infinity is confusing to you. The example from Kubik is pretty straightforward. You can have an infinite set that contains another infinite set (like the set of all integers contains the set of all even numbers). Of course, if you add up all the numbers in both sets, you don't end up with a number higher than infinity; they would both just be infinity. But as a set, one can be said to be a higher order of infinity than the other.

@ShootingNova said:

@Freefa11: No, not really. Absolute Omnipotence is not a sense of nonsense, just transcendence we have not yet understood (and I doubt we ever will). To be honest, we've only scratched the surface despite the scholars and philosophers out there.

Simply claiming that it makes sense doesn't mean it does. Claiming it makes sense while also claiming we don't even understand it, to the point we probably never will, definitely doesn't do anything to show that it actually makes sense. This is exactly the same problem Lewis showed; the question of whether omnipotence itself is a logically valid concept isn't raised, it is simply assumed that omnipotence works somehow, and makes sense somehow.

It seems irrelevant here though; the Homeric Zeus was not omnipotent, and I presented evidence the Homeric universe was not especially large. I don't recall seeing someone provide proof to the contrary, so I do not see why Galactus would have much difficulty with him.

@Freefa11: I know it's not Orphic Zeus.

I never claimed it made sense and then said it does as a result. And nothing in my post even gave that impression, in fact it gave off the opposite impression. So making up information to suit your point isn't going to help you.

Claiming it makes sense while also claiming we don't even understand it, to the point we probably never will, definitely doesn't do anything to show that it actually makes sense.

Again, I never said anything about it making sense. I'm saying it's much more complicated than "it makes sense", or "it doesn't make sense". Again, by most accounts it's a transcendent value that we cannot directly define.

Are we discussing Accidental Omnipotence, or Essential Omnipotence? Yes, I do believe it is fairly irrelevant, so we can stop completely or we can continue this in a PM.

@Freefa11 said:

@Hyper_God: The advantage of dealing with infinity and infinite sets mathematically is that it basically puts it into the domain of pure abstracted logic, devoid of any philosophical or theological bias. When you put a name on it, like Zeus, God, Allah, etc, people can get defensive if you start to question whether or not it is the greatest, most amazing thing that could ever possibly exist. Reduce it to a sideways-8, and people tend to calm down about it and are more free to approach the subject without burning each other. Math is also, obviously, a highly systematic way to approach it.

I'm not sure why the idea of different levels of infinity is confusing to you. The example from Kubik is pretty straightforward. You can have an infinite set that contains another infinite set (like the set of all integers contains the set of all even numbers). Of course, if you add up all the numbers in both sets, you don't end up with a number higher than infinity; they would both just be infinity. But as a set, one can be said to be a higher order of infinity than the other.

Confusing to me ? LOL , I am one of the few people in this thread that grasps this intellectually deep philosophical concept unlike some others .

Its pretty straightforward imo , and that's the reason that why among so many "omnipotents" that Marvel showcases , most can be beaten by more powerful beings in comics .

@Hyper_God: Sorry, that was supposed to be directed at kingkronos, not you. I will edit my post to correct this.

The last few posts are really funny.

@blur99 said:

The last few posts are really funny.

Which posts, specifically?

@ShootingNova said:

You quoted Lewis' defense. I pointed out that despite his basic premise being reasonable, he did not seem to stop and question whether or not the idea of omnipotence itself is nonsense to begin with. You said, "No, not really." I took that to mean you disagreed with me. You said "infinity is not a sense of nonsense," which I took to mean you disagreed more specifically to my objection to omnipotence itself not making sense. You said it was "just transcendence we have not yet understood," which I took to mean you viewed it as something that somehow works and is at least potentially understandable (i.e. it ultimately makes sense, even if we don't realize it now), as opposed to nonsense people just made up without thinking too hard and with no actual basis in logic or reality.

I dunno, seems like a pretty straightforward interpretation of your response. Sorry if I misunderstood, but if your answer was actually supposed to be along the lines of "it may or may not make sense and maybe does neither," I think you could have been clearer, since something being bound by the rules of logic is usually viewed as an "either/or" situation, and that seemed to be how Lewis was taking it as well.

In any case, if you're not going to present anything more in defense of Homeric Zues, it seems the actual topic is finished for now.

@Freefa11: Perhaps I should have said "not exactly". Because you might be correct, you might not.

As for quoting Lewis, I quoted that quite some time ago and a few posts later I discarded it, by saying there were much better responses than contradictory ones like that.

Are we really arguing over if a mythological Zeus can beat Galactus after eating a planet,ha!bring along the marvel Zeus too.He takes both of them no problem.the Other and Skrier beat them silly also.For the record I barely consider Zeus who has been killed at least twice to the Chaos god with no problem.

This is one of the most pointless bumps ever. Depending on the mythological source, Zeus is described as being practically the universe itself, or is omnipotent. Those iterations cannot be harmed by Galactus and would obliterate him.

Even versions of Zeus that can destroy the universe via their thunderbolts can win. Any iteration inferior to that would be beaten.

@shootingnova: absolutely true.

Any mythic deity is higher than any human, including stan lee. And any comic/manga character who cannot beat toaa is not fit for a league above that.

Well....seeing as how humans probably created mythic deities. I don't think so, but Zeus does win.

Galactus wins with easy

Zeus is nigh omnipotent in most media. He wins

Well, seeing as how galactus probably created toaa, that could be true.

@princearagorn1:

So you're saying mythic deities weren't created by humans?

Galactus.

Yep.

@princearagorn1:

So you're saying they are real?

as far as the thread is concerned, yep.

@princearagorn1:

Galactus and Zeus were created by humans.

Galactus

Well, galactus, and the Zeus of his verse are. That's why neither is above toaa/stan lee and hence incapable of winning this fight as I originally said.

@princearagorn1:

Mythological Zeus was created by humans. Why should one be more real than the other? The only difference is that one was worshipped by humans.

Well, one is a God, above the writer by definition, other is a comic book character below him by definition. Obvious win for the former.

@princearagorn1:

God created by humans. They only exist in the pages of books or our mind. So they are both below real humans.

Yes, the zeus created by stan lee is below him. That's not the one galactus loses to either.

@princearagorn1:

Zeus from mythology is below real humans too cause he was created by humans.

Zeus created by humans is below the author, Zeus the God is above humans by definition. Kind of going in circles here.

@princearagorn1:

But Zeus the God was created by humans. He's not real.

Pretty much back to where we started. Zeus created by humans isn't real, is below authors, and loses to galactus and all that. Zeus, the God is above humans by definitions. Not bringing anything new to the table here.

@princearagorn1:

Yeah but Zeus the God doesn't exist. He's as real as Galactus. Unless you believe in Zeus.