Odin vs Morgoth

@arathorn_ii: Explain to me why something can't be omnipotent. Also comic books regularly defy your logic, for example characters being able to fly or even having powers at all.

Odin stomps Morgoth.

No offense but if the guys who are saying that Morgoth is Living Tribunal level are right then this thread is a massive spite and should be locked because Odin is nowhere near Living Tribunal level.

If not then I see this fight as a stalemate at best or Odin wins.

No one, ever, is omnipotent. Not Eru, not TOAA, not God, not Allah, no one. For example: Can TOAA make a stone, big enough so he couldn't lift it? Yes, this means there is something he can't do, lifting the stone. No, he isn't able to make such a stone. This means nobody is omnipotent.

@arathorn_ii: Your point makes no sense. It's like saying can god make a Square circle or can he make 1+1=3. Also a rock with infinite mass cannot exist as only god is infinite and the rock would not be able to rest on any planet or surface as firstly, it would have to be infinite in size so that would make it beyond Time and Space which would make that rock illogical in the first place. Secondly, if it has an infinite mass then the planet would rest on the rock, not the other way round (because the rock has a greater mass than the planet), so when someone attempts to lift it, they would lift the planet not the rock. So you can't even attempt to lift the rock to begin with. You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

First, making a ''square circle'' is making a square and calling it a circle. Even a toddler can do that. Or God can redefine the meaning of ''circle'' to make it a word ment to use for anything that we call square now and vice versa. A God should also be able to redefine that number 1, so 1+1=3. About the rock, maybe I didn't say it right. Instead of saying ''big enough'' I think I should have said ''heavy enough''. Also, if you're omnipotent, it means you can do everything, even make some sort of gravity in space that pulls such a rock. There are even infinite amounts of ways to make a rock big (or heavy) enough so you couldn't pull it if you're omnipotent, even if that means you have to alter all rules of space and time, but there isn't a single way to beat this paradox, even an omnipotent being, which proves that omnipotence can't exist.

I also don't know where you got that crazy idea from that I think I'm the first one to make the rock point, because I don't recall saying such thing, but if you want to believe that, be my guest. I also never said God can't exist, hell, I'm Christian myself and believe in God, just not that he's totally omnipotent.

You also didn't give me a reason why or how someone can be omnipotent.

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii said:

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

I get most of it and agree to most of it. Your example about the 13-side triangle or the one with the four sided circle aren't like the rock paradox. ''Making'' a square circle is just making a square and redfine the definision of the word ''circle''. It's easy to get. However, if I ask an omnipotent being to make a rock, heavy enough so even he (or she (or it)), can't lift it, he makes an unliftable rock. When he lifts it however, it's not an unliftable rock anymore and therefor it didn't do what I asked. It didn't make a rock he couldn't lift, simply because he lifted it. And the thing abut God being outside logic, I ask God to do something that defies logic, but in a way that it's still impossible to do.

@arathorn_ii said:

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii said:

@eternityx said:

@arathorn_ii: firstly I didn't say you we're the first one to make the rock point. Secondly there isn't a way to answer this question because of the way you've asked it. It's like asking: Do you still beat your wife? If you say no it means you used to, and if you say yes, it means you still do. Either way it makes you a wife beater.

Also the question suggests that god is bound by laws he created and that he is within the laws of nature, but he can't be because he created them. So this question can't be applied to god.

This is what you said: You're trying to illogically prove god can't exist and that just does not work. You think that your the first to make that rock point, but you can google it and see more flaws with your false paradox.

This is what I replied for.

I don't really know about what question you're talking about. If it's about the big-rock-question, it's not really the same as ''do you still beat your wife'', because the rock-question is a paradox, and the wife-question is making someone admit that that person atleast did something and maybe is stil doing it.

if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do EVERYTHING. This includes being able to make such rock, but then there still is something he can't do. It will always apply, even if that means he has to alter everything around him to just make this rock. Because if he can't alter physics to make that rock, there is something he can't do, altering physics. Also, if God made the laws of nature, there's nothing that implies that the power he made is stronger then his powers now, atleast when he's omnipotent, because then he would be able to alter his own power to beat everything, even the laws of nature. If he can't alter something he made himself, this also implies he's not omnipotent. This question can also be implied to God (though God is said to be almighty and that's something different then being omnipotent, but you can still aply it to him, just like you can aply it to you and me, though that would be completely useless).

For an omnipotent being to exist, all things, including logic, would be contingent upon them. They would not be contingent upon anything. Here's a Venn diagram:

When something is said to be contingent upon something else, it refers to dependency. If Object B is contingent upon object A, it means that Object A's existence is required for Object B to exist, and that if Object A does not exist, Object B cannot. The existence of water, for example, is contingent upon the existence of both hydrogen and oxygen. It is simple to conceive of a universe where only hydrogen exists, and in such a universe, water, being contingent upon both, could not exist. So, when a being such as God is said to be omnipotent, what that means in its most fundamental implications is that God consists of the very outermost circle on a Venn diagram of contingencies (I debated over whether another type of diagram, such as a flowchart, would better illustrate the relationships involved, but I figured that this would suffice for getting the basic concepts across). Everything else could theoretically cease to exist, and it would not affect God, while God, having everything else contingent upon them, is required for the existence of anything else

So, when the question regarding an omnipotent being appears in the form, "Can an omnipotent being do 'x'?", the answer is always"yes", regardless of what "x" actually is. And, so, yes, an omnipotent being can in fact create a rock so heavy that they cannot lift it. But, an omnipotent being is also capable of lifting rocks that they are incapable of lifting. Makes no logical sense? Of course it doesn't. But an omnipotent being isn't limited by logic, and so they can quite literally do the impossible. They can make a round square or a four-sided circle. Exist and not exist at the same time, or make it so that they never existed, and never will exist, while nevertheless remaining in existence (or, similarly, not exist while not remaining in existence, but still be capable of doing anything). Make themselves non omnipotent while remaining omnipotent. They could even make it logically possible for logically impossible things, like a 13-sided triangle (or the existence of an omnipotent being), to be logically possible. All of these things sound completely absurd to us, as well they should. We exist in a universe that is entirely contingent upon logic (and, possibly, vice versa, although logic would apply to any conceivable universe, not just our own). But, since god is indeed the underlying source of all else, a being upon which all things, including logic, were contingent, even the logically absurd would not be an issue for them. Their power would be beyond any possible reasoning or comprehension.

So as I previously said, God is not bound by the laws of nature or logic, because he created them and so he can exist without them or defy them at his will.

I get most of it and agree to most of it. Your example about the 13-side triangle or the one with the four sided circle aren't like the rock paradox. ''Making'' a square circle is just making a square and redfine the definision of the word ''circle''. It's easy to get. However, if I ask an omnipotent being to make a rock, heavy enough so even he (or she (or it)), can't lift it, he makes an unliftable rock. When he lifts it however, it's not an unliftable rock anymore and therefor it didn't do what I asked. It didn't make a rock he couldn't lift, simply because he lifted it. And the thing abut God being outside logic, I ask God to do something that defies logic, but in a way that it's still impossible to do.

I don't understand the last bit of what you're trying to say, but I think the whole point of the examples I gave you are that nothing is to be redefined. Otherwise, what is to stop God from redefining the the words in your sentence to mean something else. Also like I said previously, God is beyond logic as he created it, so before he created logic, he still existed without it, meaning he can literally do the impossible.

Odin.

Bump.

Morgoth for Godsake, he is equally powerful to Lucifer Morningstar and Michael combined.

good grief, morgoth dies in a horrific stomp

What melkor did in the first song was he changed it to his own will therefore changeing the fate of the world and so therefore he could have made anything happen in the world and so there fore he was omnipotent, and he was omnipotent through the power eru, and so therefore he was as omnipotent as Erie wanted him to bewitch was just weak enough that eru was more omnipotent. Omnipotents is infinite power and so therefore an infinity, there are larger and smaller infinities as an infinity is just a never ending amount and so in numerical values eru would be nine repeating point nine repeating, the largest possible infinity as he can literally create and do anything even defying logic as said above and then melkor at his greatest would have been nine repeating point nine repeating minus zero point zero repeating one, the closest number of less value than the highest number being Eru, enabling Melkite to be beaten my eru as he is eru's creation but still more powerful than anyone else, including Odin and this is the point at which he is being compared to Odin and so he could have just made Odin one of his servants to fight for him. Once the songs were no longer being made and the world and its fate had been created Melkor would no longer be able to change things and so would therefore no longer be omnipotent, but he had already given himself near infinite power (eg a google plexian) and would still be able to beat Odin in this weaker state. And wry only made that world by his choice because he didn't want to make more than that and so that was the entire universe and everything in it that melkor took and he could have just written anything into the song so he could have taken any size of universe.

Melkor stomps hard

Odin is a mid-high tier Skyfather who is almost universal

Morgoth is star level at best.

Stomp in favor of the Allfather

@deactivated-60b4614ca5580: Morgoth is far beyond star level lol. If Odin is "almost universal" then prime Melkor should beat him.

Damn, the Odin dickriding is INSANE. What's Odin's best feat? Fighting a hungry Galactus? Galaxy-busting? Morgoth literally destroys the song that creates the universe, TWICE! Melkor is a confirmed universe buster, and I don't think I can say the same for Odin.

Melkor stomps

Yeah, the amount of biased people who don't even know who Melkor is or what universe he comes from is driving me nuts. Melkor is a god who's immortal, can create and destroy anything, and even stand against the will of Eru Iluvatar (God). The amount of biased dickheads on here is a little out of control.

@discmaniac-: Agreed. Look, I like Marvel as much as the next person, but the entirety of Ea (a 4-dimensional universe) was seen as fictional compared to the Ainur. And Melkor is the strongest Ainu. Of course Melkor is going to wreck house.

Can't stop the Melkor/Morgoth wank, "hE's mUlTi-oMni-SuPeR-vErSaL!!~1!"

No, No he's not.

Morgoth was nearly defeated in hand-to-hand combat by Fingolfin, an elf. Then, Tulkas, who is more like Thor/Hercules, literally dumped Morgoth on his head, and put him in chains made by Manwe.

Odin murderstomps, and it's not even competitive.

How much do you know about Melkor? Apparently not much.

I know he's nowhere close to 616 Marvel Odin, both by actual canon feats and implied power. Maybe before Melkor came to Arda he had skyfather levels of power, but he never demonstrated anything near skyfather power while down in Arda, hasslin' the elves, dwarves and men.

@unrequited1:

Skyrim law

LOTR law

Problem with these is they are vague at best and I have yet to see actual feats outside of fan interpretation on what they believe pertains to actual feats. Abilities. I went back and fourth with someone on a Galactus vs a particular skyrim deity and outside of hype and conjecture no feats were shown.

This seems to be the way of things on comic vine these days.

LotR purists are so goofy that they think singing bad notes into a song is equivalent to blowing up a universe. Ainundale on these beats, yo!

When will they learn that in-universe mechanics are an easier way to achieve something, not the equivalent of achieving it in a vacuum?

Odin at his best is peak skyfather level sitting just behind Galactus for me well at least Galactus who is not Full or LB.

Odin has manipulated Surturs flame, the flame that would destroy the universe and set fire to the world tree destroying the 9 realms(universes)

He fought a sentient storm for a week straight(god Tempest) and used its essence and transferred it in Thors hammer.

He has Absorbed Surter

He has erased or what seemed to by to an entire pantheon.

He has destroyed multiple Galaxies, tore at the fabric of the multiverse, in a battle with Seth He was fighting in every plain of existence.

He has repaired damage on a galactic scale

Read minds across the universe

Cleared everyone from mid guard.

Stopped time

Trapped Surtur on midguard in a energy field He absorbed from the universe

Transfered the 10 realm from the world tree a hid it away in a hut that contains an infinite universe He made.

Went head to head with Galactus in a telepath battle.

Even after the battle was over due to Loki hiding the seed that would for ever sate Galactus hunger. Galactus was reluctant in carrying on the battle.this for me was a show of mutual respect. Galactus did not view Odin as a godling but a rival.

@rajjarsalt: He didn't just "sing bad notes" into it. He was literally overpowering everyone else singing the Ainulindale. And IIRC completely ruined the first song out of anger.

Besides that, Tolkien said he would eventually destroy Arda and potentially Ea. Whether you consider Arda to be just the planet or the solar system is debatable.

Melkor is also vastly stronger than Varda, who created all the stars, so he's at the bare minimum multi-galaxy.

More importantly, I think, is the fact that Melkor and the other Ainur ultimately view Ea as fictional (at least in their true forms.) But they view each other as real. Eru has this same POV, viewing the Ainur as real beings with Ea being fictional. So they're at least 5-dimensional in their true form. I really don't see Odin beating that. Especially considering the best feats I can tell from him being at best low multiversal.

In Middle Earth, it kinda is.

The reaching, stretching and acrobatics in this reply are asthma attack level lolz

Where in the HELL would anyone get the idea Arda is an entire solar system? It's a single realm. A flat world. A flat-Earther's wet dream. Arda is a planet.

Melkor dedicated his entire career to dominating and ruling a single, solitary planet within Ea... and ultimately failed to even accomplish that. Meanwhile, Odin can't even remember all the realms, planets and civilizations he has conquered, erased and/or utterly subjugated over the millenia.

You're saying Melkor is some omnipotent and omniscient, all-powerful, cosmic abstract level being... yet he is permanently disfigured and nearly defeated by Fingolfin, a mere elf? And nearly eaten by Ungoliant, an evil being native to Arda? And gets utterly embarrassed by Tulkas in H2H single combat? Yeeeaaa, I don't buy it. If that were the case, Fingolfin would also have to scale to a near-cosmic level being... Fingolfin is most definitely NOT a near-cosmic level being.

@unrequited1: 1. Arda has a sun and moon both within it's confines. That makes it a solar system. IIRC, the actual PLANET is called Ambar. The other Sun and Moon corespondents, the two lamps and the two trees, are also within Arda. This one is definitely debatable, but it seems more like a solar system than a planet to me. And regardless, whether you take Dagor Dagorath as canon, Tolkien's original intent was that Melkor destroys the Sun and Moon when he returns, so make of that what you will. And Varda still created the stars, which is literally undebatable. Melkor is far superior to her.

2 and 3. You're missing a key point here: Melkor became weak. When he first entered Ea, he was more powerful than all of the other Valar. He didn't want to just mindlessly destroy, though: he wanted to rule Arda, and specifically rule over elves and men. Over time, though, during the War for the Sake of the Elves, the Valar storm Utumno and find that Melkor has weakened. He's still stronger than any individual Vala, but he's almost equal with Manwe. He weakened because he had invested so much of his own power into the fabric of Arda itself. He only continues to decline from there, eventually becoming too afraid to come out from his own fortress. This is because he continued to drain his native spirit into Arda itself and his armies, including creating dragons.

He was in a constant state of decline, and he eventually (sometime after he steals the Silmarils but before his duel with Fingolfin) becomes permanently bound to his physical body. That's why Fingolfin could harm him- even though in origin they were of vastly different power, Morgoth by this point was a coward, tied to a single body, with almost all of his original power gone. Fingolfin was an elf, yes, but elves have been shown to be able to match Maiar before, and Fingolfin was noted as being exceptionally powerful. And Fingolfin didn't even win, he gets crushed while crippling Morgoth (again, because he was bound to his body. He couldn't heal himself or create a new one.)

Ungoliant was able to hold down Tulkas and Orome, she's definitely not just some random creature to be taken lightly. We don't know what she is, period.

And Tulkas is just the physically strongest Valar who came down after Melkor had spent a ton of his power.

Ultimately, I think you're ignoring way too much context in regards to Melkor in an attempt to seemingly downplay him. If people can provide sufficient evidence, I can be convinced Odin would win, but as of now, it really depends on what form of Melkor.

Melkor by the War of Wrath? Odin whoops his ass EMBARRASSINGLY.

Melkor by the point of him stealing the Silmarils? Odin could maybe win, we don't really have much info for Melkor here.

Melkor when he first comes into Arda? I'd personally say Melkor.

Melkor in his true, cosmic form? He sees a 4D structure as fictional. I don't see Odin taking on a 5D being and winning.

@unrequited1: Morgoth was nearly defeated by one of the most powerful elves of all time after he had lost almost all of his power. You're acting like he got shit on by Legolas or someone like that in his PRIME. Which is crazy far from the truth.

Tulkas is the strongest Valar, PHYSICALLY, who came into Arda after Melkor had spent a majority of his power fighting the other Ainur. And he was tied up in a chain made by Aulë, the god of substance and matter, specifically made to hold a Vala. Again, you're seemingly ignoring context and acting like Melkor, in his prime, got dunked on and tied up with some random chain.

And both of those feats are after Melkor has been weakened a considerable amount. This isn't him when he first descends into Arda, let alone him when he's a formless spirit.

Afaik, the pre-EA Melkor was not only as influential on song as all the other Valar togehter, he also literally "defeated" them while singing. There is a quote that says that All the Valar together have the power to shape or control the matter of the EA (universe). Melkor has since ceased to be called Valar (although he is), so it is not known whether this quote refers to all Valar and Melkor, or all Valar without Melkor. If the latter, then Melkor is as powerful as the beings that are potentially universal together, so by this interpretation, Melkor stomps.

Unfortunately, that's only for Melkor, not Morgoth. Odym blinks.

Edit: Never mind. I just read the OP which is a bit confusing. If this is Morgoth at its peak, it should be called Melkor. Anyway, Melkor wins, but I'm not sure if it's a stomp. Odin has feats when he shakes up the multiverse, but he should consistently be at the galaxy or multi-galaxy level. So in that case Melkor theoretically wins.

Morgoth doesn't have the feats to compare.

Lmao Odin murks the verse marvel verse is way beyond Melkors. Even normal Thor would stomp