Who would win in a fight.An omnipotent being ,omnipresent being or a omniscience ?
And this is not about comic book characters it is about real life.Basically what if God or a creator gave omnipresence and  
Omniscience to two creatures he creates but still holds omnipotence. Could God achieve the other two and still content with the beings he created. 
 
Please help me with this brain twister.I need to no so that I can beat someone in a debate.
Sorry if this has all ready been done and structured exactly like this.

wrong place to put this...and i think the rules say there has to be at least one comic character in a battle

"Belief that omnipotence exists in any form is easily disproved. A classical example goes as follows: 
"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock." 
This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature - see liar paradox. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not a deity can pose a question to which the deity would not know the answer."    

This is not about comic book character's It s  about real life stuff.Like the Bible,Torah etc. And the Battle fourms hold more interesting debates and arguments then the others. Even tho I have not listed many forums on the other pages this is what I have read so this is wy I posted in the battle section.Also this can technically be refereed to as a battle since my opponents are fighting. in away.

You never know vitality. I well try to answer your Question later .But as for me I say Omnipotence comes out on top.

Use Comic Characters / At least one Comic Character per battle

In case you didn’t know, this site was made for comics. It would follow that the majority of fights should be comic related. This isn’t to say that only comic fights are allowed and all others will be locked, but keep in mind what most of us are here for. Also, keep silly battles to a minimum - Aunt May vs. Odin is fun once in a while, but gets tiring if overused.  Your battle must at least have one comic character or character who has been in a comic in order for it to be considered a battle, If it is Will Smith Vs DR Dre this should be in the off topic section and not in the battle forums.  

Fine then let's put the Tooa in to this battle.God creates him and gives him Omniscience and he creates the primal over monter who was created with Omnipresence.Who comes out on top? The MoM is there as a newly created Angel who is told to watch what happens. There happy now?
 
So who Wins?

I say again Omnipotence comes out on top.

@Vitality:
I am tired of God paradoxs, because they are thought up by idiots and use idiot logic and its anoying no body gives the answer. A omnipotent god can make a mountain he SHOULDN't  lift because it is important to his desgined future that he shouldn't, for example god can lift all mountains on this earth and keep them lifted for eternity the fact he doesn't is because he has degreed he shouldn't, he limits himself not on ability but on nesacarity. 
 
Also the paradox of a God making a square circle can be solved if God makes a shape that can be persevied as a square by half the world and a circle by the other half and it can't ever be deciphered which one it is, there you have a square circle, because the only thing that matters is what we percive, that is what reality is. 

i think omnipotence. omnipresence is the last. its between the omnipotent being and the omniscient being. 
@Vitality said:

"

"Belief that omnipotence exists in any form is easily disproved. A classical example goes as follows: 
"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock." 
This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature - see liar paradox. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not a deity can pose a question to which the deity would not know the answer."    

"

Thanks.I was going to probably try to say the exact same thing. Anyways what do you think will come out on top? 
for some reason I think your answer will be omnipotence because it is the most logically sound answer.

omnipotence 

"

"Belief that omnipotence exists in any form is easily disproved. A classical example goes as follows: 
"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock." 
This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature - see liar paradox. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not a deity can pose a question to which the deity would not know the answer."    

"

"Belief that omnipotence exists in any form is easily disproved. A classical example goes as follows: 

"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock."   "

For the purposes of the battle. 
 
Omnipotence is the ability to execute control over any environment at any time, or all of it at once. 
 
Omniscience is knowing all that was is or will be. 
 
Omnipresence is being "present" everywhere, or actually being everything. 
 
Knowing everything but not being able to do anything about it is of little use. The very vast majority of the things you would know would be well beyond your ability to intercede, providing there is no way to become omnipotent through knowledge. 
 
Being everywhere should give you an approximation of omniscience, though you would have to figure out the future, instead of knowing it ahead of time. The question becomes what does "presence" mean in this example. If it means being able to effect things with a physical body no matter where they are, like a body that stands in a space time nexus, moving nowhere, but able to interact in all locations, this gives a pretty broad application of physical interaction with the world. If on the other hand the "presence" described is not attributed to a physical body, or way to interact with the world beyond being nebulously "present" this would be a very useless power. 
It seems to me that omni-present when defined in the context of god was meant to convey an in-ability to hide from him. "You can't get away with that, god knows everything, and he is everywhere." It's the old santa dodge. "He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good..." 
 
Omnipotence means the ability to exercise complete control of everything, any time. This might constitute an immediate knowledge of all things, but does not necessarily mean a complete knowledge of the past or the future, though it could be interpreted that way. (being able to calculate the future through amazing predictive skills) 
 
Omnipotence is the most powerful of these options. 
 
 
Now, the logical contradictions.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence are all words that describe a fictional state. they cannot exist in actuality.

The problem of the stone that god can't lift is a valid logical contradiciton. The only way to avoid the contradiciton is through word play that gives the appearance of a proof, but is actually playing outside the rules.

God actually making a rock he can't lift is a logical contradiciton so long as he is described as being omnipotent. Saying that god can do it anyway does not remove the logical contradiction, it is just an assertion that logic is not useful when talking about god. This does not solve the contradiction. it is the equivalent of taking your toys and going home.

The same goes for the circle / square. These are concepts which are defined by their physical cheracteristics. a square is categorically NOT a circle, and vice versa. Saying some people see it as a square and others see it as a circle does not make them one and the same. it just means that to some it is a square, which is a wholely different structure than a circle. others see it the other way, but at no time is the discrepency resolved in this scenario. The only way for this scenario to approach being correct is for the words to lose their meaning entirely, but then you have only dissolved the concepts of their meaning. you have not in fact made the two interchangeable. 
 
these logical contradictions exist because the concepts of omni-etc.. do not exist in reality. the ability to conceive of a thing does not equate to it's existence in actuality.

God not another one iv disproven this three times already
 
So again in order to be omnipotent (All powerful)There can not be any one that can reach that level therefore there can not be more than one omnipotent being ( I know that wasnt the question but it always comes up so im getting it out of the way)
 
To answer the question Omnipotent is the most powerful because Omnipotent = all powerful in other words an omnipotent being is also 
Omnipresent and Omniscient
 
Now for the rock and the circle things they are contradictions and since an omnipotent being cant contradict itself no they cannot be done

The omnipotent one destroys the omnipresent one, thus destroying itself, while the omniscient one saw it coming a mile away :)

Think about this though. We are all thinking of this with human logic. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if God created everything that he is outside of all Earthly rules. Therefore human logic does not apply to him. When we ask if God can create a rock so big even he can't lift it, the answer doesn't make sense to us logically. However, because God is outside of our logic that does not apply to us. Even though it may not make sense to us it doesn't mean God can't do it. 

" The omnipotent one destroys the omnipresent one, thus destroying itself, while the omniscient one saw it coming a mile away :) "

First off, between omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience the winner would be omnipotence.  If we used easier words it would be all powerful versus all knowing versus everywhere guy.  The all knowing guy would know he would lose and the everywhere guy would lose.....everywhere.  As for the omnipotence paradox, that paradox has been solved and accepted by at least 99% of philosophers.  The answer is an omnipotent being could not create a rock so big he himself could not pick up.  Imagine two people; one can create any stone and the other can lift any stone.  Just because the second guy can lift any stone does not make the stone maker less powerful.  So if we imagine that the stone maker and stone lifter were the same person then we would still find no problem.  Not being able to make the stone is a consequence of being omnipotent.  If you want the logical proof of this email me at wcouchma@umflint.edu

 Larry has a brain tumor, its in a certain part of his brain. Its position means, Larry can see things, that no one else can see, or even experience, unless, they you know, have an imagination as well and like to pretend and play their own little games. Larry sees a guy called Harry, and another guy called Barry. Both are from his imagination, but Larry doesn't know that, after all, why would Larry think in his imagination about Barry and Harry when he could imagine Svelda and Svetlana, anyway, Larry and Barry and Harry all fight? Who wins? 

just as you can make a sandwich you cant eat god can make a rock he cant lift and if that does not answer your question think of this. GOD's logic and understanding is infinity beyond our very small amount of knowledge so he would know how to do it.

This is abit strange, but obviously omnipotence

Omnipotence: Unlimited power

Omniscience: Know everything

Omnipresence: To be everywhere at once

If you were omnipotent, you'd be able to will yourself to know everything and be everywhere at once.

If you were omniscient, you'd know how to do anything and you'd know how to be everywhere at once.

If you were omnipresent, then....well, you'd just be omnipresent.

So either Omnipotence or Omniscience.

Jmarshmallow

Mk